Home > Local Transport Plans > Provisional LTP July 2005 (version for comments) > Opportunities

Involving Local Partners, Stakeholders and the Public

We identify opportunities to deliver a better quality of life to local communities through a range of mechanisms:

(a) partnership working

(b) corporate working

(c) local consultation

These mechanisms are discussed below:

(a) Partnership Working

Regular consultation and joint working arrangements with partners can both maximise the efficient use of resources and produce benefits for local communities. At the strategic level we have been involved with Advantage West Midlands, the West Midlands Regional Assembly and other Authorities in the Region to undertake studies of common problems. Recent examples of this has been the the Regional Freight Study and the Study on Lorry Parking aimed at improving services to businesses. These studies are helping focus policies on gaps in facilities. At the implementation level a recent example has been the coordinated approach to the simultaneous maintenance of the M6 and A38(M) during the summer of 2004, involving Birmingham City Council, Centro and the Highways Agency.

We have established a Traffic Managers liaison group to perform the duties of the 2004 Traffic Management Act. One task is cross-boundary coordination of road closures caused by utility work, in order to minimise traffic disruption. We aim to achieve value for money in its widest sense, taking account of the cost of delays to people and businesses.

Following their valuable contributions to the 2003 LTP, more than 3000 stakeholders were invited to comment on the Appendices supporting this LTP2. Some responses have also informed the development of the LTP itself.

Evidence

One example concerns the relationship between transport and health. A Specialist Registrar in Public Health from one of our area's Primary Care Trusts, who is also an Honorary Clinical Lecturer in Public Health at the University of Birmingham, undertook a Health Impact Appraisal Assessment of the 2003 LTP. His work has highlighted where this LTP2 should focus so as to improve personal health in line with government targets in 'Our Healthier Nation'. He has also contributed to work on improving air quality and accessibility to fresh food, both themes of the Transport Shared Priority.

Following submission of our 2003 LTP, we have continued to talk to key stakeholders in order to better understand the issues and practicalities of proposed solutions. We frequently meet leaders of the business community and representatives of Environmental campaign groups to discuss problems, opportunities for change, and progress towards targets. Centro has regular meetings with bus and rail operators about operational and strategic issues. Goods distribution is discussed with the Freight Quality Partnership. All these meetings have helped to inform our LTP2 strategy and Major Schemes programmes.

Evidence

A programme of 'Quick Wins' has been identified with the West Midlands Business Transport Group to improve network management. Progress on this work is monitored and reported to the group's regular meetings.

Other stakeholders which are responsible for strategic transport networks include the Highways Agency, Network Rail, Strategic Rail Authority and bus and coach operators. We maintain close working relationships over individual schemes and their potential impact. For example, the Masshouse Circus and Bullring redevelopments involved close liaison with the HA and SRA in order to minimise disruption to traffic and rail services.

Within the context of our current strategy and range of measures, we have the opportunity to work with Government and other key stakeholders to establish new and innovative approaches to dealing with congestion beyond this LTP2 period.

(b) Corporate Working

Leaders and Chief Executives of the Metropolitan Authorities have increased their focus on the LTP, and especially its targets and scheme delivery. This ensures that our LTP2 is a corporate document, taking account of needs within individual areas, and that it will achieve better value for money through inter-departmental working between Authorities.

Examples are emerging from work on accessibility planning. Birmingham City Council has set up a corporate accessibility group to ensure there is focus on the accessibility agenda throughout the council. Walsall MBC has established links with the education service to ensure that a pilot study looking at borough-wide access to post-16 education can progress smoothly.

(c) Local Consultation

Consultation with the public and stakeholders has meant that our LTP2 is focused on important local issues. This ensures that resources are targeted wisely and achieve value for money. We want to minimise the risk of pursuing strategies that are locally unacceptable and that might, therefore, waste resources. Feedback from local consultation on Bus Showcase, Red Routes, Safer Routes to School and Local Safety Schemes has fed into both the wider strategy and detailed programmes.

Evidence

Birmingham City Council hold an annual Transport Summit. This is attended by over 200 local representatives and stakeholders. The event in Spring 2005 focused on the LTP and the outcomes of the workshops were used to inform the LTP Policy development.

As part of the travel surveys completed in 2001, residents were asked for their views on transport provision. Based on more than 1500 responses, their views are summarised in Table 1 ‘Transport Issues and the Transport Shared Priority’.

Table 1 Transport Issues and the Transport Shared Priority
Issue

%

 Shared Priority Theme
Traffic congestion

64%

Congestion
Speed of traffic

51%

Safety
Condition of roads

46%

Safety
Unreliable trains and buses

40%

Accessibility
Shortage of car parking

39%

Accessibility
Condition of footways

32%

Quality of Life
Frequency of public transport

32%

Accessibility
Unsocial behaviour on buses

29%

Accessibility
Difficulty in getting to places

28%

Accessibility
Too few cycle routes

23%

Accessibility
High level of traffic noise

19%

Quality of Life
Poor street lighting

17%

Safety
Difficulty in using public transport

13%

Accessibility
Number of road accidents

10%

Safety
Abandoned cars

8%

Quality of Life

Respondents were asked to identify their top three concerns and top three priorities. These are set out in Table 2 ‘Improvement Priorities’ and linked to the most relevant Shared Transport Priority.

Table 2 Improvement Priorities

Priority Identified

%
Improve public transport

44%

Reduce traffic congestion

43%

Provide cheaper fares

40%

Better road maintenance

38%

Improve bus reliability

34%

Improve bus frequency

27%

Improve walking / cycling facilities

20%

Safer public transport

17%

Improve transport interchanges

14%

Provide new roads and by-passes

12%

The research found that improving public transport was equally highly rated by both car and public transport users.

Close working relationships with the Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) have been established in order to avoid duplication and consultation fatigue. The LSPs have raised local issues and many of these have informed the development of our LTP2 Strategy as well as, where practicable, feeding into individual Authority programmes. A common theme from the LSPs is personal safety. This reinforces our LTP2's focus on safety and is the reason for our local personal security target.

We have also undertaken further consultation to ensure that the general direction of the 2003 LTP retains public support. We distributed a consultation leaflet and questionnaire, in free newspapers, to households across the Metropolitan Area in 2004. We invited the public to agree or disagree with key elements of the overall transportation strategy. The following list illustrates the principal outcome, with the percentage who agreed or strongly agreed given in brackets:

In areas served by the Metro, support is similar to that shown for Bus Showcase, Park & Ride and Green Travel, however elsewhere it is not a well used mode and does not feature in people's priorities.

Respondents were asked to identify three top priorities from a list of eleven statements:

These outcomes reinforce the strategy. The lack of support for Red Routes appears to be partly due to a lack of knowledge of their purpose.

We used focus groups to reach those who were under-represented in the newspaper questionnaire. Each comprised a specific group such as young people. Ten groups both mirrored the newspaper consultation and explored specific issues in greater detail, including accessibility planning. The outcomes are described in an Appendix.