Home > Associated groups > Strategic Environmental Assessment > Environmental Report > 7 Alternative Strategies of the LTP

7.1 Strategy Development to Date

7.1 Strategy Development to Date

The West Midlands Area Multi – Modal Study (WMAMMS) the CoventryArea Network Study (CANS) and the 2003 West MidlandsLocal Transport Plan

The WMAMMS was commissioned by theGovernment Office of the West Midlands in December 1999; provided inputs to theRegional Planning Conference in Summer 2001; and was completed in October2001. The study was exhaustive andlooked at options for delivering the Governments transport policy objectivesand regional policy objectives that were emerging at the time.

The study had a 30 year time horizonand included all aspects of travel including road, rail, light rail, bus,walking and cycling. The studyrecommended some £7.6bn investment of investment although not exclusivelywithin the LTPÂ’s delivery capacity. Aproportion of the investment would need to be made by the Highways Agency andthe Strategic Rail Authority/DfT. Themain recommendations of the study and their status are summarised in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1 WMAMMS Proposed Policy Interventions

LTP measures

“Showcase” type improvements on all strategic bus routes

Government has pledged up to £1 billion for:

Provisional LTP2 prepared to reflect this

“Red Route” and local highway capacity improvements mainly to facilitate public transport priorities both for Super Showcase bus and LRT.

10 light rail/Metro routes

An integrated package of measures to reduce travel demand and increase the use of more sustainable modes of travel

Road user charging systems

WMMA bid to undertake feasibility study into demand management measures with DfT and HA through Transport Innovation Fund.

Non-LTP Measures

A Regional Express Rail Network and heavy rail schemes

Not within the LTPÂ’s delivery capacity. Highway Agency (HA)/Strategic Rail Authority/DfT schemes. Western By-passes not supported by SoS, Regional Express Rail network not supported by SoS ATM introduced on M42 by HA.

A link between the M54 and the M6/Birmingham Northern Relief Road

Western Bypasses of Wolverhampton and Stourbridge, and strengthening of the road hierarchy in the Black Country

Widening of the M42 between Junctions 3 and 7 plus junction improvements

The introduction of Active Traffic Management (ATM) on the existing motorway “box” to make best use of existing routes

As part of the WMAMMS study, a numberof policy options and interventions were consulted upon and a number ofstakeholders were actively engaged including those representing environmentalinterests.

Four ‘Drivers of Change’ were identified and assessed:

The WMAMMS study established that anapproach which focused too heavily on any one Driver of Change would notdeliver the required outcomes and that a blend of policy measures was required.

The study also tailored options for three geographical sub-areas:

Ineach area, alternative packages of multi-modal schemes were tested. Some of these were biased towards a majorexpansion of public transport including Bus Showcase and Metro; otherscontained fewer public transport interventions and focused more on generalhighway capacity increases. The threesub–area packages were ‘blended’ and a further layer of area wide interventionstested including strategic park and ride and Red Routes.

The Coventry Area Network study (CANS) wasundertaken in parallel with WMAMMS with the specific remit of looking at themeasures which could be implemented to address CoventryÂ’s transport issues. Whilst it was recognised that many of thegeneric issues raised by WMAMMS were also relevant to Coventry, it was considered necessary to lookat a range of options specific to the city.

Followingconsideration of alternatives and stakeholder consultation, the study recommendedthat:

Following the publication of the WMAMMS study, the transport authorities used its findings to prepare and submit an interim LTP in July 2003 that considered the elements which could be delivered through the local transport plan process. There was no statutory requirement to do this, as the 2000 LTP was still valid.

In preparing this plan, considerablelocal consultation was conducted with the general public and other stakeholdersbeing asked to identify their priorities for investment.

In response to preparing the 2003interim submission, the Government pledged that up to £1 billion would be madeavailable to the West Midlands for theimplementation of major schemes. The £1billion, however, was not without conditions: schemes still needed to provethat they offered value for money and the DfT also laid down guidelines on thetype of scheme it wished to see. Inpledging the funding DfT stated that:

It could fund, for example, twofurther extensions to the metro system, a programme of super showcase busroutes, and red routes, park and ride sites and enhanced facilities for walkingand cycling.

Again, the need to meet theGovernmentÂ’s requirements in order to release funding has a bearing on the typeof measures that can be considered.

Delivering National and Regional policy objectives

LTP2 has a key role in deliveringnational and regional policy aspirations. One of the key purposes of LTP2 is to deliver national Government andregional policy which limits the number of options available.

The Government has set out its overallTransport Strategy in the Transport White Paper ‘the Future of Transport: A Networkfor 2030’ in July 2004. In terms oflocal transport the DfT issued its FullGuidance on Local Transport Plans: Second Edition in 2005. It requires authorities to prepare LTPs inaccordance with this guidance as a means of implementing the ‘local transport’element of its overall strategy.

Inbroad policy terms central Government and the Local Government Association hasdeveloped the Transport Shared Priority. In summary, this requires LTPs to deliver:

The aforementioned White Paper alsosuggests a number of policy initiatives which may be used to deliver thesepolicy objectives including better public transport (particularly buses),making better use of existing infrastructure and demand managementmeasures. The Government iscategorically of the view that we cannot simply build our way out of the problemswe face on the road network. Morespecific details as to the GovernmentÂ’s transport strategy and LTP guidance canbe found in Section 3.3 of the LTP.

The LTP is also a delivery agent forkey regional strategies, namely the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and theRegional Economic Strategy, both of which came into effect in 2004.

In summary, the RSS seeks to promote anurban renaissance whereby a greater proportion of development than in therecent past takes place within the Major Urban Areas (MUAs). This is aimed towards reversing the trend ofoutward migration which increases pressure on greenfield sites in the surrounding shiresand encourages unsustainable commuting back into the Metropolitan Area.

Preparationof the RSS began in 2000. Althoughpreceding the requirements of the SEA Directive it consideredsix strategic options for the development of the WMMA. These comprised:

These options were consulted with keystakeholders and each submitted to a sustainability appraisal [12] . The end strategy is somewhat of a hybrid ofthe above which seeks to maximise development opportunities in areas ofgreatest need and in the MUAs. The key element of the RSS from an urbanperspective is that the WMMA will be expected to accommodate a greaterproportion of development than in the recent past. In environmental terms this has benefits inthat it limits urban sprawl and has the potential to limit long distancecommuting. It is imperative, however,that this new development contributes towards the regeneration of the MUArather than compromises environmental quality and that it is supported byinvestment in infrastructure. Clearlythe LTP has a key role to play here, as the Urban Renaissance that is soughtrequires a high quality transport system.

The RSS also includes the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) as such a shift in policy will have significantimplications for investment and the manner in which people go about their dailybusiness. One of the key features of theRTS is the need to develop a high quality public transport system as a pre-requisiteto accommodating more development in the MUAs.

The Regional Economic Strategy (RES),prepared by the Regional Development Agency (known as Advantage West Midlands),conforms with the RSS. In geographicalterms the strategy identifies a number of Regeneration Zones and HighTechnology Corridors where there are high concentrations of population,unemployment and development opportunities and seeks to divert resources to suchlocations. More details of this approachand the geographical areas can be found in Section 3.4 of the LTP.

Therefore the ‘realistic’ alternativesthat the LTP can consider are governed by its requirement to deliver the abovepolicy objectives. As such, it can onlyfocus on those options that coincide with the above policy framework.

The West Midlands 2005 LTP

On account of its interim 2003submission, the WMMA was not formally obliged to make a 2005 submission. It did, however, elect to do so, one of thekey reasons for this being to address the issues raised in the GovernmentÂ’s £1billion announcement.

As the 2003 LTP had support from DfT,was based on the exhaustive WMAMMS and had broad stakeholder buy in, it followsthat the 2005 submission is essentially a roll forward rather than a fullreview. Given the time and resourcesexpended to get to this stage and to build such a consensus, it is neitherpractical nor desirable to develop a whole new set of alternatives particularlyas this had already been undertaken as part of WMAMMS.

In order to verify that stakeholderswere still on board, the local authorities have held a number of consultationevents and consulted widely again with the general public to establish whetherthere had been any subsequent change in attitude which would need to bereflected in the 2005 submission [13] . In addition to continuing the dialogue withumbrella interest groups, including Local Strategic Partnerships and theenvironmental and business community, the West Midlandsembarked on a questionnaire based consultation exercise with the generalpublic. Over 900,000 questionnaires weredistributed with some 3,327 returned.

Potentialrespondents were presented with the following strategic options and requestedto prioritise them. Respondents wereasked whether the West Midland should:

Respondents strongly agreed with workingtowards better rail services, giving greater priority to walking andencouraging safer motoring. RespondentsÂ’top priorities were improving rail services, spending more on highwaymaintenance and extending the bus showcase network. The statement with the least support wasbuilding more roads.

In recognition of the fact thatquestionnaire surveys are not necessarily representative, a number of focusgroup discussions were convened in the summer of 2004 and the same options metwith ‘strong agreement’. Althoughreceiving a greater level of endorsement than via the newspaper questionnaire,building more roads still remained the least popular policy intervention.

The outcome ofthis consultation exercise has informed the preparation of LTP2 and helpsjustify the preferred course of action. For example, although there are limitations on how LTPs can influencetravel by rail, a number of West MidlandsÂ’Major Schemes seek to improve rail infrastructure as well as improving the busnetwork. In terms of targets, thoserelating to road safety and bus patronage are stretching, thus reflectingrespondents views.

The 2005 LTP Major Schemes Programme

This section has so far charted thepolicy confines within which the West Midlands LTP was developed and how thestrategy has taken account of a number of possible alternatives and widespreadstakeholder engagement. In this context,it is imperative that the major scheme programme coincides with the overallstrategy if the plan is to be robust and defensible in its own right and in termsof the complying with the SEA Directive.

In terms of the actual investmentprogramme, the new LTP carries forward a number of major schemes that whereincluded in the 2000 and/or 2003 LTPs and have subsequently been approvedeither fully or provisionally by the DfT or are awaiting a decision. Reopening these for debate, given that theyaccord with the overall strategy, have been subjected to detailed consultationand consideration of alternatives is not a realistic way forward.

As many of these schemes have developedalongside the emerging RSS and RES, they are considered to accord with the aimsof these strategies. Furthermore, anumber have emanated from WMAMMS and CANS, which in itself was developedfollowing consideration of a number of strategic alternatives. When submitting details of major schemes inthe form of an Annex E for DfT approval, alternatives need to be considered andit has to be demonstrated that consultation has taken place.

Table7-2 indicates those schemes that are either approved or awaitinga decision from DfT. Coventry RapidTransit and Birmingham New Street Station have also been submitted to DfT butare subject to considerably more background work so are not included on thislist. Table7-2 also lists those major schemes which have beensubmitted but have yet to be approved by the Government.

The Midland Metro Line 1 extensions to Five Ways andBrierley Hill (via Wednesbury), however, have granted approval under theTransport and Works Act. This has necessitatedthe consideration of myriad options and thorough consultation with allstakeholders which all issues being dealt with at a formal public inquiry. As such, it is not considered appropriate toreopen the debate.

Table 7-2 Schemes approved or awaiting decision from DfT

h7. Fully Approved and on Site

Hagley Road Bus Showcase

Outer Circle bus Showcase

Coventry quality Bus network (Coventry Primelines)

Cradley Heath Town Centre Strategy

Red Routes Package 1

Northfield Regeneration

Wolverhampton Centre Access, Interchange and Integration

h7. Provisionally Approved

Selly Oak Access Road

Walsall Town Centre Transport Package

Brierley Hill Sustainable Access Network

Darlaston SDA Access Project

Owen Street Level Crossing Relief Road

Schemes submitted to DfT awaiting decision

h7. Awaiting DfT Decision

West Midland Urban Traffic Control

Longbridge Strategic Park and Ride

Airport/NEC Public Transport Access Scheme

A41 Expressway/A4031 All Saints Way Junction Improvement

Chester road Access improvement

Dudley Road Traffic Management Stage 2

Brownhills Transport Package

Wolverhampton Railway Station

A programme
has been developed which prioritises the schemes in the Provisional LTP. A number of approaches were piloted, but it
was decided to adopt an approach which considered each scheme in terms of its
contribution towards:

It was necessary to revise the list in terms of practical deliverability in order toestablish a robust programme. The finalprogramme is indicated in Figure 9.1 of the Provisional LTP.

The programme of major schemes must still be subjected to‘Regional Prioritisation’ prior to DfT formally releasing funds. All schemes that are not fully approved areto be subjected to this process and their contribution towards the regionalregeneration, economic and housing agendas needs to be fully considered overand above their contribution to the requisite LTP strategy and meeting of NATAobjectives. The results of this exercisewill be issued in early 2006 for inclusion in final LTPs. The exercise, however, does add an additionallevel of uncertainty to the plan making process and by inference makes anyassessment more difficult.

Future Policy Alternatives

The modellingwhich has informed the preparation of the LTP2 indicates that even with theimplementation of those major schemes that are fully and provisionally approved(including metro Line 1 improvements), and Integrated Transport Expenditure,there will still be over 100 million additional car trips per annum. This requires alternative approaches to beconsidered if gridlock is not to be encountered and has led to the WMMAexpressing an interest in considering the suitability of demand managementmeasures through the DfTÂ’s Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). This will comprise a feasibility study andwill, if successful, inform the national as well as West Midlands debate.

The DfT willannounce who the successful bidders are next year. This, however, has no bearing on theassessment of the Provisional LTP as it is a commitment to look at afeasibility study – as yet no policy options have been developed.

Conclusions

In preparingthe Provisional LTP2 the WMMA is not starting with a clean sheet. An interim LTP was prepared in 2003 inresponse to the WMAMMS and CANS and this met with a pledge of up to £1 billionfrom the DfT, provided that certain criteria governing its release were met. This in itself limits some of the alternativethat can be considered in this submission. This plan, therefore, is a roll forward of an existing strategy whichhas broad stakeholder buy in.

Notwithstandingthe above, WMAMMS and CANS were exhaustive studies which evaluated alternativemeasures, and evaluated their environmental economic and social implicationsand recommended an optimum set of policy interventions.

LTP2 is not astand alone strategy in its own right, it is also a key delivery agent for boththe RSS and RES, both of which specify the nature and location ofinfrastructure development that is required. As part of the RSS preparation, a number of strategic alternativeapproaches were considered and consulted on with key stakeholders before anoptimum strategy was developed. In asense, therefore, the consideration of strategic alternatives had beenestablished and a course of action identified to which Provisional LTP2 had torespond.

In preparingthe provisional LTP2, a number of strategic alternatives were consulted uponwith stakeholders and the general public. These have helped shape the WMMAÂ’s targets and by inference expenditurefrom the Integrated Transport Block. Aseries of policy responses to the identified environmental problems have beenidentified (which again are linked to the targets) and the WMMA is movingtowards a procedure whereby ongoing monitoring of targets will lead to a rangeof alternative interventions being available should targets be veering offtrack.

The prioritisationof the major scheme programme has in itself also led to the consideration ofalternative approaches to deliver broader objectives. It is apparent, however, that a number ofmajor schemes have been approved or have been submitted for approval. This process necessitates consideration ofalternative options, the contribution towards broader policy objectives andsatisfying NATA objectives. In suchinstances it is clearly not practical or feasible to re-open the schemes forassessment.

The WMMA isalso aware that the need for considering alternative strategic alternatives isfar from over, hence its decision to bid for TIF monies to examine futuredemand management options in partnership with DfT and the Highways Agency.