Home > Local Transport Plans > Provisional LTP July 2005 (version for comments) > Performance Management
Target Justification and Trajectories
The following pages list our targets. Our Planning Guideline funding levels for the LTP2 period are the same as for 2001 - 2006, so inflation will affect the outputs that can be produced. 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. 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 safety schemes remains high, and it is expected that funding will continue to be allocated at a similar level to the last LTP period. An extrapolation of the existing excellent trends in casualty reduction give confidence that the stretching target standards defined by DfT can be achieved. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Yes. We have traditionally performed very well in reducing accident casualties, but targets with more recent baselines will prove a challenge. 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. |
|
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. |
|
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 means the trend line will never reach zero. |
|
Management of risk |
Continued promotion of the seriousness of the problem, continued prioritising of schemes that give the greatest saving, new initiatives such as 'Kerbcraft' in Solihull, and dissemination of lessons learned in the Birmingham and Sandwell projects. |
... blank page
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 | PRISM has forecast the increase in vehicle-km travelled between 2001 and 2011, taking into account our regeneration aspirations, committed major schemes and behavioural change to bring about 5% modal shift from car. The above target is based on these PRISM forecasts. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Yes, given the local 3.3% increase between 2001-2003. 7% is around half the NRTF prediction for conurbations until 2010. Growth is expected only in non-peak periods because the network is largely at capacity in morning and evening peak periods. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Regional Economic Strategy, Centro 20-Year Strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Continue to encourage modal shift away from car travel, for example via TravelWise, further development of Bus Showcase, Smarter Choices campaign, etc. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Public transport operators should increase capacity if possible. Local employers to commit more to TravelWise initiatives. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Significant modal shift from car fails to happen. |
|
Management of risk |
Continued monitoring of traffic mileage via a new monitoring system, statistical analysis and review of policies if target not being achieved |
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP6:
a 2% reduction in morning peak traffic flows into the 9 LTP centres between 2005/06 and 2010/11
| Target justification | Target is a balance between the need to reduce congestion around the centres by discouraging car trips, and the desire to maintain car access to promote economic regeneration. 6.4% forecast reduction between 2001/02 and 2005/06 will be offset by car trips generated by 100,000 extra jobs in centres over the same period (2005/06 to 2009/10). |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Yes. Despite a recent decline in morning peak car trips into the centres, 100,000 new jobs will be created in these centres by 2011 which will put pressure on this target. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Road congestion and air quality policies, Centro 20-Year Strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Improve alternative means of access to centres, continue to encourage modal shift away from car travel via TravelWise, further development of Bus Showcase, Smarter Choices campaign, etc. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Public transport operators to increase peak period capacity. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Public transport operators prove unable to increase peak period capacity, new centre developments are more popular to car-borne travellers than anticipated. |
|
Management of risk |
Focus on policies that increase the capacity of the network, review complementary policies, for example - car parking. |
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP6 - additional target at authorities' discretion:
increase the morning peak proportion of trips by public transport into the nine LTP centres as a whole to 33.8% by 2009/10
from the 2005/06 forecast baseline of 32.73%
| Target justification | Based on an extrapolation of the trend over the last eight years, with a significant improvement in modal split expected in Coventry on completion of the Coventry Rapid Transit major scheme. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Yes. The percentage of morning peak public transport trips into centres increased from 30.94% in 1997/98 to 32.63% in 2003/04. The 2003 LTP set targets for individual centres that totaled 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 4 years. |
|
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, Smarter Choices campaign, etc. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Public transport operators to increase capacity and improve operations in the morning peak period. |
|
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. |
|
Management of risk |
Focus on policies that increase the capacity of the network, review of complementary policies, for example - car parking. |
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP7:
no increase in average vehicle delay in the morning peak from 2003 until 2010
| Target justification | Based on initial PRISM output which suggests that, while average daily vehicle delay may well increase with more car trips on the network, the effect will be less pronounced in the morning peak due to capacity restraints. No increase in morning peak congestion is also a LTP policy objective. However, the focus of this target may change as DfT are currently working on a national person-delay PSA target which is likely to replace this mandatory vehicle-delay target. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Very ambitious, given planning policies to concentrate jobs and houses in the Metropolitan Area, but achievable given modal shift expectations and Red Routes development. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
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, Smarter Choices Campaign, enhanced network management, etc. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Advantage West Midlands to promote development in sustainable locations which offers a choice of travel mode. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Red Routes implementation 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 baseline data |
The Accessibility Shared Transport Priority Theme
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP1:
improve accessibility to the four key service areas by public transport by X% between 2004/05 and 2010/11
| Target justification | Although "X'" is still to be determined, consultation has revealed that access to all four key service areas is important, so the target should reflect this wide approach. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
"X" will be determined by discussions with partners about Accessibility Model output. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
LTP Accessibility strategy, Community Plans re all 4 key services, Regeneration Zone policy re jobs, DfT accessibility indicators, Centro 20-Year Strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Further develop links with partners, especially Local Strategic Partnerships, to ensure funding and a practical implementation programme are in place. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Recognise the importance of Accessibility Planning through involvement and allocation of funding through the resources audit. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Resources audit fails to identify sufficient resources to show improvement against the target, less than full engagement of outside partners. |
|
Management of risk |
Regular reviews of the practicality of the programme including a re-assessment of resources allocated. |
| Performance and trajectory | Awaiting baseline data |
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 | 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. While NO2 levels fluctuate from year to year, a 1% reduction is feasible within Air Quality Management Areas. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Any noticeable reduction in NO2 is challenging given current fluctuating levels, but can be achieved if Air Quality Action Plans are effective, helping to meet congestion and traffic growth targets. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Local Air Quality Action Plans, health policies. |
|
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. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Highways Agency to implement measures to reduce pollutants arising from traffic on M5, M6 and M42. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Intermediate Outcome Indicators
Targets
Four 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 2004/05
and 2010/11
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI97a:
reduce the length of Classified Non-Principal Roads requiring further investigation according to DfT rules and parameters
by 5% between 2003/04 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
2003/04 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
2003/04 and 2010/11
| Target justification | The figure of 5% is a draft for all targets in the national absence of consistent, accurate survey data. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
The figure of 5% is considered challenging based on the small amount of comparative data available, and is more than satisfactory under DfT Guidance. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Asset Management Plans, Road Safety Plans, district Walking and Cycling Strategies. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implementation of Birmingham PFI will have a big influence on improvement across the whole area, given its scale and the proportion of roads in Birmingham. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Locally commissioned consultants must provide accurate monitoring data quickly. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Birmingham PFI does not begin in 2006, delays in the availability of accurate, consistent survey data, further changes in DfT guidelines delay the production of baseline data. |
| Management of risk | Coventry is leading the process of developing asset management plans, consistency being achieved through the District Maintenance Engineers Group. |
|
Performance and trajectory |
Awaiting accurate data on all targets |
... blank page
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI102:
increase bus use from the 2003/04 base of 325 million trips per year to 355 million by 2010/11
| Target justification | Initial output from PRISM has indicated that 355 million trips is within a range that could be expected if proposals are successfully implemented. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Very ambitious, given past long-term decline. Achievable if modal, economic and behavioural interventions as set out in WMAMMS happen. Improvement likely to be gradual as even the effects of Major Schemes does not immediately register at Metropolitan level. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Centro 20-Year Strategy, Accessibility, Congestion, Air quality etc. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implementation of Coventry Quality Bus Network, further Bus Showcase development, bus priority as part of Red Routes, Smarter Choices Campaign continues with a high profile. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Bus operators to encourage passenger growth by improving quality of services (comfort, cleanliness) and coverage / frequency of services. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Local consultation fails to support the physical measures required, funding and local support declines. |
| 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. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI104:
achieve levels of bus satisfaction of more than 60% by 2009/10
| Target justification | 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. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Continue to provide infrastructure and information to help bus users, support personal security improvements. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Local bus operators to improve all areas of bus service provision. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Funding outside that of LTP must be available to allow key actions to happen. |
|
Management of risk |
Monitoring surveys of performance, cooperation between bus inspectors, police and local authorities to deter anti-social behaviour. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP3:
a 1% increase in the cycling index between 2003/04 and 2010/11
| Target justification | Suggested as realistic when calculated using the English Regions Cycling Development Team target setting methodology. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Ambitious. Cycling levels appear to be falling, although rate of decline is leveling off. Target classed as satisfactory by DfT. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Health policies, sustainable communities, Authority cycling strategies, Rights of Way Improvement Plans. |
|
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. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Schools and work places with Travel Plans to show positive response to encouragement to cycle, health sector to become more involved. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Revenue funding for cycle training is at least maintained, maintain funding for School and Workplace Travel Advisors to maximise cycling message. |
|
Management of risk |
Undertake 'Smart Choices' promotion, monitor initiatives to identify the most successful approaches. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP4:
no reduction in the ratio between the number of pupils and the total number of car journeys to school between 2005/06 and
2010/11
| Target justification | Based on initial output from PRISM indicating that total car trips to school are likely to rise, but at a similar rate as the increase in school age population. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Ambitious. Car travel to school appears to be increasing locally. However incentives for schools to adopt travel plans seem to be working. Target 'satisfactory' by DfT standard. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Safer Routes to School programme, School Travel Plans. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Continue work with schools to implement travel plans, as part of the wider 'Smarter Choices' activity. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Currently reluctant schools to become more involved with travel plans. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Perceptions of poor 'local schools' encourages parents to choose more distant schools less accessible by non-car modes, perception of dangers of unsupervised travel to school. |
| Management of risk | Maintain funding for School Travel Advisors, promote the performance and benefits of local schools, monitor impact of schemes to identify and roll out best practice. |
| Performance and trajectory | New target, awaiting baseline data |
... blank page
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP5:
83% of bus services operating between '1 minute early and 5 minutes late' by 2010/11
| Target justification | Based on an extrapolation of the existing trend, plus expected improvements resulting from wider roll-out of on-bus GPS, Bus Showcase, Red Routes and Punctuality Improvement Partnerships. Target based on 90% punctuality by 2012/13 as per DfT guidance. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Yes. Initial surveys show performance improving on monitored routes, albeit from a low base. Above improvements should accelerate the trend. Target is stretching as defined by DfT. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Centro 20-Year Strategy, bus operators' policies. |
|
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 Commissioners to emphasise required standards to bus operators, operators to acknowledge need for improvement and to implement practical changes required. |
|
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 |
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
increase light rail use from 5.1 million trips per year in 2003/04 to 5.8 million in 2010/11
| Target justification | A steady year-on-year increase is expected with Phase 1 extensions not programmed to open before the end of this LTP period. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Yes. Line 1 patronage is stable but increased frequency in the peak and developments in Bilston and West Bromwich should boost ridership. Birmingham City Centre and Wednesbury - Brierley Hill Metro extensions will not open before 2011. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Centro 20-Year Strategy, links to accessibility, congestion, air quality 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. |
|
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 |
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
make more efficient use of the existing transport network by 2010/11
| Target justification | Work required on this draft target to quantify potential improvement. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Some work required on quantification and monitoring of this target to ensure it is ambitious and realistic. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Congestion reduction and accessibility, health policies, sustainable communities, Rights of Way Improvement Plans. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Continue with Park & Ride expansion, continue to develop TravelWise initiatives, promote use of most efficient vehicles and modes of transport. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
More local organisations to implement TravelWise initiatives. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Resource problems prevent key actions being implemented. |
|
Management of risk |
Monitor and promote benefits of programmes. |
| Performance and trajectory | New target, awaiting baseline data |
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
improve actual and perceived personal safety while travelling on public transport by 10% between 2005/06 and 2010/11
| Target justification | Consultation with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships has agreed 10% to be in line with local aspirations. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Yes. Trend data shows a slight decline in reported incidents over the last two years. Proposals for extra manpower to address crime on buses from 2005/06 will have a positive impact. Target agreed with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships as challenging but achievable. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Accessibility, District Crime and Disorder strategies, community safety audits. |
|
Key actions for local government |
New team of police and support officers to work on buses in 2005/06, continue installation of CCTV systems, work with police and British Transport Police. |
|
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 | New target, awaiting baseline data |
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
help to generate economic activity by increasing the accessibility of the nine LTP centres as a whole by 4% between 2004/05
and 2010/11
| Target justification | Initial modelling work has indicated that 4% is feasible given expected network improvements. However, further work is required, using more recent versions of accessibility software, to confirm suitability. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Changes in travel behaviour often lag behind accessibility improvements, because public takes time to respond. So 4% is challenging but achievable given scale of planned bus improvements. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Accessibility, Regional Spatial Strategy (development in centres, especially housing), Regional Economic Strategy, PPG13. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implement Bus Showcase and priority measures, 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 |
Insufficient resources or public opposition prevent implementation of bus priority schemes. |
|
Management of risk |
Monitor and promote benefits of programmes. |
| Performance and trajectory | New target, awaiting baseline data |
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
increase the %age 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 | Accessibility modelling has indicated that 2% increase is feasible. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
A 2% increase is challenging given the normal rate of infrastructure change, but network management enhancements should achieve improvement. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Regional Freight Strategy, West Midlands Lorry Guide. |
|
Key actions for local government |
On key routes between industrial areas and motorways ensure that, as far as possible, congestion is minimised, speed limits are maintained 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 |
Lack of funding to ensure bridges remain open, or re-open, to 44 tonne lorries. Rail and waterway authorities fail to prioritise this work. Network efficiency improvements are not delivered. |
|
Management of risk |
Liaise with local partners and Government to coordinate programmes. |
| Performance and trajectory | New target, awaiting baseline data |
Targets
Target required by Regional Planning Guidance:
100% of schools to have travel plans by 2011
| Target justification | Output target defined in the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy. |
| Ambitious and realistic ? | Hugely ambitious and unlikely to be achieved due to resource constraints, especially considering the uncertain futures of School Travel Plan Advisors. |
| Links to other policies / targets / indicators | Safer Routes to School programme, TravelWise. |
| 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 | New target, awaiting baseline data |
... blank page
Targets
Target required by Regional Planning Guidance:
30% of all employees to work in organisations committed to work place travel plans by 2011
| Target justification | Output target defined in the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy. |
| Ambitious and realistic ? | Yes. 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. As such 30% is challenging but not out of reach. |
| Links to other policies / targets / indicators | TravelWise and Local Agenda 21 |
| Key actions for local government | If possible put more 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 |
