| Summary
The Department for Transport is ultimately dependent on the work of local authorities for the delivery of several of its Public Service Agreement targets. In an attempt to facilitate improvements, the Department reformed the system for planning and funding local transport in 2000. The new framework of Local Transport Plans (LTPs) was accompanied by a significant increase in capital funding, and a slight increase in revenue funding. While the new system is widely held to be an improvement on its precursor, it is not without flaws.
The five-year LTPs brought a greater coherence and profile to transport planning at the local level, and a welcome injection of capital resources and certainty of funding over longer periods. The larger metropolitan areas have also developed joint LTPs. Nonetheless, performance is disappointing against targets for public transport use, cycling levels, local road congestion and air quality. Indeed, of the Department's PSA targets dependent on local authorities for delivery, only the road safety target is on track to be achieved.
A particular problem for the current system is that although local authorities are responsible for designing and delivering their LTP, it is the Department for Transport which determines transport priorities, assesses the Plans, and awards the funding. Local authorities are therefore responsible for the outcome without necessarily having all the tools for delivery.
More specifically, the requirement to bid to central Government for funding for Major Schemes (those over £5 million) was felt to remove from local authorities the power to implement the sorts of schemes which might be expected to have a radical effect on the transport system. The Department's decision to revoke funding for several proposed light rail schemes seriously affected the keystone of planned transport improvements in some areas. Greater powers to raise funds locally for Major Schemes should be explored. Although there would need to be more appetite by local politicians to use these capabilities than seen with the unused congestion charging powers, if any progress was to be made.
Under the existing system, there are improvements which could be made to the bidding and appraisal processes. Far too much time and money are wasted preparing and designing schemes which are never approved for funding. We question whether the existing bidding framework is cost-effective. In addition, the paucity of revenue funding in comparison to the relatively high levels of capital mean that local authorities face difficulties paying for the maintenance of new infrastructure and services. To ensure proper asset management, capital and revenue funding for transport should be more closely integrated. This would also help promote complementary measures such as marketing and travel planning.
The reluctance to prioritise local objectives, for fear of being penalised by the Department for Transport through the performance-related funding system, is a barrier to progress in some authority areas. We are concerned that the Government's Transport Innovation Fund—a major source of funding over the next decade—will sideline such local priorities even further with a narrow focus on only congestion and national productivity.
| 
