House of Commons - Transport

Select Committee on Transport Twelfth Report

2 Local Transport Plans: a new planning framework

5. The Local Transport Plan (LTP) framework replaced the Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) system of bidding for capital resources in 2000. Under the TPP system authorities used to bid for funding for individual schemes. This meant that central Government sometimes took decisions on very small-scale schemes. The new framework was intended to provide: greater certainty of funding over a five-year period; strategic planning for a local audience, with local consultation; consideration of capital and revenue spending; local flexibility and discretion over resources; and a greater emphasis on performance management.[8]

6. In London a separate system of local transport planning and funding exists. The Mayor develops a transport strategy for Greater London and Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) are produced by each of the boroughs, setting out how they will implement the strategy in their area.[9] The plans are statutory documents required by the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Local Implementation Plans will eventually replace the Borough Spending Plans.[10]

Preparation of Local Transport Plans

7. The Department for Transport issued a 'Full Guidance' document to local authorities to help them prepare the first Local Transport Plans.[11] This Guidance was revised for the second round of Local Transport Plans.[12]

8. Preparation of the Local Transport Plan requires considerable resources. Estimates put the cost of preparing a Plan at between £80,000 and £200,000 for a county council.[13] For a major metropolitan area such as Greater Manchester, the costs were significantly higher. Production of the second round LTP, including staff time and use of consultants to develop the strategy, programme of schemes, targets, and models is estimated to be about £500,000. In addition, document production and distribution cost around £30,000, and annual monitoring of the LTP costs £500,000.[14] This totals over £3 million for the five-year LTP period. South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Partnership told us that the obligation to produce a Local Transport Plan every five years as well as Annual Progress Reports required a: "disproportionate level of attention to be paid to a regime that delivers only a fraction of the investment needed."[15]

9. Although LTPs require a significant investment, local authorities informed us that the preparation which goes into developing the plans would be undertaken in any case in order to design a transport strategy, and because of the need to ensure efficient allocation of resources.[16]

10. The evidence we received indicated a large degree of support for the LTP framework, even if it was not regarded as flawless.[17] This finding was supported by research carried out by the transport consultants Atkins which identified that the Local Transport Plan is a popular policy, strongly supported by local transport practitioners, stakeholders and the wider transport profession.[18] Local authorities have welcomed in particular the increased certainty in funding over the five-year period, which aids long-term planning.[19]

11. We support the introduction of the Local Transport Plan framework. Preparation of the Plans requires considerable investment, but this is a necessary investment and should be seen as fulfilling a core responsibility of local government. For most local authorities the cost is not excessive and similar work would have to be carried out under any framework. Nonetheless, we have concerns about certain aspects of the process, which are detailed below.

Exemptions from the requirement to produce Local Transport Plans

12. As part of the 'freedoms and flexibilities' agenda introduced by the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,[20] those local authorities rated as 'excellent' in the Audit Commission's Comprehensive Performance Assessment were granted 'freedom' from the requirement to produce a Local Transport Plan. The 'freedom' applies to councils scored as 'excellent' overall, regardless of actual performance in delivery of their transport functions. Further, despite this freedom, all 'excellent' rated councils have continued to produce Local Transport Plans and Annual Progress Reports, indicating that they are valuable in their own right, irrespective of Departmental requirements.[21] Both of these factors call into question the appropriateness of such a measure.[22]

13. The 'freedom' for 'excellent' rated councils from the requirement to produce Local Transport Plans or Annual Progress Reports is anomalous. It could undermine strategic transport planning and the transparency of councils. The fact that no local authorities have chosen to exercise this right shows that it is otiose and indicates that these documents and the processes that must be undertaken to produce them are valuable in their own right. This exemption should be dropped and replaced with some more appropriate measure which is actually sought by local authorities.

Department for Transport guidance

14. The Department's Full Guidance on Local Transport Plans was generally welcomed by witnesses as clear and helpful.[23] Nonetheless, there were criticisms of the timeframe in which the document was made available.[24] The second edition guidance was available in draft form for consultation between August and October 2004. The final version of the guidance was published in December 2004. Local authorities were required to submit new provisional Local Transport Plans by the end of July 2005, and revised final versions by the end of March 2006.

15. For the metropolitan areas with joint plans, getting the Local Transport Plan approved by all the district councils and the Passenger Transport Executive can be a lengthy process. As the West Midlands Chief Engineers and Planning Officers Group (CEPOG) illustrated:

The LTP2, being a framework policy document, has to navigate the process of scrutiny, Executive Cabinets and full Council of each of our eight authorities, each with different meeting schedules […] the late issue of additional Guidance, expenditure details, and other information made it a difficult process […] to secure Members' approval to the Final LTP2 […] Feedback on the Provisional LTP2 was helpful, but the timing of the Planning Guidelines and the actual Settlement Letter, in December, left very little time to refine the Plan.[25]

16. Similar criticisms were made of the timing of the Department's Guidance on Annual Progress Reports.[26] The changes made to this document also attracted criticism. The Institution of Civil Engineers told us that the Guidance "appears to be in a constant state of flux where last minute significant change has become the norm."[27] Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State for Transport rebutted claims that the Guidance was issued too late for best use to be made of it by local authorities:

Local Transport Plans are not supposed to be something that you write today and then you do not come back to for five years[…] it should be something that they are working on constantly and at any particular time, they ought to be capable of producing another five-year programme and nine months is not unreasonable.[28]

17. The extent of change to the guidance document between the first and second editions was also considered a problem by some witnesses. The consultants, Mott Macdonald, stated that the change "could have been managed much better."[29] Devon County Council commended the Guidance for being "clear and comprehensive" but stated that "the subsequent amendments, re-interpretations and additions have not been helpful or advantageous."[30]

18. The Department was right to seek to improve the guidance to assist local authorities ahead of the second round. The Department should, however, have better prepared the councils for the changes that were to come. The ongoing changes to the Local Transport Plan and Annual Progress Report guidance throughout the period of the Plan have caused difficulties. In future, the Department should make every effort to issue its guidance earlier. Local authorities need time to draft their Local Transport Plans and have them agreed through cabinet meetings. The particular needs of the metropolitan areas which opt to produce a joint plan involving several councils must be taken into consideration by the Department when it devises its schedule.

The revised guidance

19. The second edition of Full Guidance on Local Transport Plans, generally considered to be an improvement on the first,[31] identified four key principles which should underpin Plans. They should:

set transport in a wider context;
set locally relevant targets for outcome indicators;
identify the best value for money solutions to deliver those targets; and
set trajectories for key targets, to enable greater transparency and rigour in assessing performance.

These are laudable principles. In practice, however, local authorities were divided as to whether the Guidance genuinely encourages joined-up policies and the freedom to prioritise local targets and objectives.

Level of prescription

20. The Department considered that the second round guidance was less prescriptive than the first. The Minister explained that the number of strategy areas had been reduced from the original 27 and the new guidance was "demonstrably putting more control and more influence in the hands of local people".[32] In contrast, other witnesses told us that the second edition guidance was more prescriptive than the first.[33] The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (AGMAPTA) told us that the system was still very prescriptive, differing substantially from other policy areas, where central government tended to set broad policy and direction and then leave local government to determine the best way of delivering national policy.[34] The West Midlands CEPOG also found the guidance to be detailed and possibly overly-prescriptive;[35] and the Local Government Association indicated that the increasingly prescriptive nature of the guidance had altered the nature of the relationship between the Department and councils, and moved the Local Transport Plan away from its original aims.[36] The Association also identified the balance to be struck between giving sufficient guidance to local authorities which need a high level of support, and giving established transport departments the space to be creative and responsive to local needs.[37]

21. The Minister's view that the second round guidance was less prescriptive than the first does not appear to be widely shared by local authorities. The prescriptive nature of the Department's guidance has altered the relationship between the Department and local authorities, and moved the LTP away from its original aims. The result has been to increase the cost and the time required for producing plans, without giving any greater certainty that they will be fulfilled.

Integrated policies

22. There were mixed views on whether or not the framework had permitted a more integrated approach to wider policies. Mr Trevor Errington, Leader of West Midlands CEPOG, drew attention to the emphasis in the Guidance on placing transport in the wider objectives of local authorities, such as regeneration and social exclusion.[38] The Local Government Association concurred: "Local Transport Plans have, in the main delivered more joined-up transport policies."[39] Other witnesses however thought that the guidance was not only too prescriptive, but that it also focused on too narrow a set of objectives. The Passenger Transport Executives Group made a particular criticism, that the Guidance has led to:

[…] an unhealthy concentration on the so-called 'shared priorities' which relate strongly to DfT delivery targets, though they notably omit reference to wider Government targets such as those relating to climate change and better relative economic performance of the northern regions.[40]

Assessment of Local Transport Plans

23. Local Transport Plans are assessed by the Government Offices for the Regions on behalf of the Department for Transport. The assessment includes three criteria: the quality of planning; the impact of the Local Transport Plan targets; and deliverability.[41] Under the new system, an authority's indicative funding allocation for the integrated transport block can be increased or decreased by up to 25% on the basis of past performance and on the quality of the Local Transport Plan. The remaining 75% is determined according to a needs-based formula. Not surprisingly, these financial incentives mean that local authorities are eager to follow the Department's Guidance closely, avoiding wherever possible the risk of financial penalties for deviating from it. Although the guidance allowed for some local objectives and targets to be included, the manner in which the Plans were to be assessed indicated that it was primarily performance against the shared priorities that would be valued.[42]

SHARED PRIORITIES

24. The Department for Transport negotiated four shared priorities with the Local Government Association in 2002: accessibility; congestion; air quality; and road safety. The Department expects local authorities to focus on delivering the shared priorities ahead of delivering other local priorities.[43] The Minister explained the Department's rationale for the shared priorities:

[…] we are highly dependent on local authorities for delivering national transport objectives […] and although we believe that it is absolutely vital that we leverage in local experience and local knowledge […] transport is the area of public policy where it is most important to have joined-up thinking both literally and figuratively. We have to think about our national transport priorities, we have to think about our local priorities and we have to get them all working together.[44]

25. He went on to suggest that the four shared priorities were developed to strike a balance between national direction and local discretion.[45] The County Surveyors' Society noted that "the guidance and scoring systems made it clear that DfT wished to see a concentration on the "shared priorities".[46] Witnesses from Greater Manchester (AGMAPTA) stated:

Whilst the Department does allow local priorities it is not clear what weightings these are given, if any, in the Local Transport Plan assessment. What would be useful to Local Transport Plan authorities is for the Department to publish the details of the scoring methodology, including what weightings are applied to national and local priorities.[47]

26. The shared priorities were welcomed by a small number of the local authorities that submitted evidence.[48]Many more authorities, however, indicated that the shared priorities were given too much prominence in the Guidance and this restricted local flexibility.[49] West Midlands CEPOG identified the imbalance in the Guidance between the 16 pages on the shared priorities and the two paragraphs on "other local priorities".[50]

27. Several authorities suggested that the emphasis on the four shared priorities deterred them from including local objectives.[51]We heard that this emphasis had been further underlined through informal liaison between central and local government. For example, the Passenger Transport Executives Group told us that the Department made it clear "in the intensive process of local engagement" that its "desired outputs were strongly linked to the delivery of the 'shared priorities'[…] For this reason, PTEs felt diverted from the wider objectives […]"[52]

28. Despite this emphasis in the Guidance, some councils did choose to adopt local priorities in their Local Transport Plans. Hampshire County Council, for example, included local priorities such as quality of life, economic development and asset management.[53] Devon County Council similarly has adopted local objectives within its second Local Transport Plan: promoting health and wellbeing; improving recreation, leisure and tourism; and improving public spaces.[54]

29. The Minister insisted that local authorities were able to adopt any number of local objectives and targets through the Local Transport Plan process. He pledged to look at the Guidance if it was being misinterpreted: "Let me make it very clear […] If you have other priorities for your local area in setting your Local Transport Plan, then knock yourself out, I am happy for you."[55] He did not, however, address the local authorities' concerns regarding the way in which the plans were assessed and funding was allocated.

Economic regeneration

30. Local economic regeneration was one objective which several local authorities indicated they would have wished to prioritise but which was excluded from the shared priorities.[56] Although not included in the four shared priorities, there are a number of references to social inclusion and 'prosperous communities' in the Department for Transport's LTP Guidance.[57] The West Midlands CEPOG told us that economic regeneration was "the bedrock on which our whole Local Transport Plan and other corporate policy documents were based."[58] The Greater Manchester witnesses (AGMAPTA) agreed with this sentiment that the shared priorities "don't adequately reflect the local need to secure economic regeneration and growth."[59]

31. There is a tension between planning for national priorities and local priorities in the Local Transport Plan. While the Department insists that councils are free to set their own priorities, this does not match the local authority interpretation of the guidance and assessment for funding. Councils judge that they are 'scored' on how well they have planned for, and delivered the national shared priorities. The guidance does not indicate what weighting will be given to success in delivering against locally identified priorities. If Local Transport Plans are to adequately reflect local objectives, the guidance and the scoring methodology must be rewritten to support it, and the way local and national priorities are weighted should be made available to councils. It is unacceptable that local authorities are effectively penalised for pursuing regeneration and job creation schemes. The Department's Local Transport Plan assessment should make it clear that local authorities can prioritise specific local transport needs, such as economic regeneration, and that these priorities will be given proper weight. That said, it is incumbent on local authorities that wish to emphasise local transport priorities to be bolder in pursuing their objectives.

Targets

32. Targets form one key part of the assessment of Local Transport Plans. Across different policy areas, local authorities have made the case for fewer targets and streamlined performance monitoring. In evidence the Local Government Association insisted that the Government should keep to a minimum the targets local authorities are required to report against, and that any additional target placed on local government by central Government should be accompanied by another target's removal.[60] Sir Michael Lyons, who has been commissioned by the Government to review local government functions and financing, told us:

The scale and complexity of national targets and inspection require the vast majority of local government's resources to be used to deliver nationally defined priorities. This can 'crowd out' local action to meet local needs and priorities […] It also contributes to a situation in which councils tend to focus their attention and efforts on influencing central government grant decisions, rather than engaging with local people and local challenges and opportunities.[ 61]

33. The second round Local Transport Plans have fewer mandatory central targets. The first round Plans were assessed against 27 policy areas. In the second round this has been reduced to eight LTP targets and nine Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs):

Table 1: Mandatory Local Transport Plan (Local Transport Plan) and Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI)

BVPI 96 Principal road condition LTP 1 Accessibility target

BVPI 97a Non-principal classified road condition LTP 2 Change in area wide road traffic mileage

BVPI 97b Unclassified road condition LTP 3 Cycling trips

BVPI 99 Total killed and seriously injured road casualties LTP 4 Mode share of journeys to school

BVPI 99 Total child killed and seriously injured road casualties LTP 5 Bus punctuality indicator

BVPI 99 Total slight casualties LTP 6 Changes in peak traffic flows to urban centres

BVPI 102 Public transport patronage LTP 7 Congestion (vehicle delay)

BVPI 104 Bus satisfaction LTP 8 Air quality target

BVPI 187 Footway condition

34. The Department for Transport's guidance document states that: "it is vitally important for authorities to set robust targets and trajectories relating to local transport."[62] We agree that performance information of this kind can assist local accountability as well as helping to identify any weaknesses and direct work programmes and funding accordingly.

35. Local authorities must be able to promote local priorities in what is ostensibly a local transport plan. It is not unreasonable, however, for government to seek the local implementation of national objectives which might well have local benefit. It is important that the weighting given to these criteria in appraisals is transparent.

36. In order to be meaningful, however, the targets have to be grounded in realistic benchmarking and measurable outcomes. There were several shortcomings with the target setting under both LTP1 and LTP2. One problem raised by witnesses is that local authorities have responsibility for targets over which they have very little direct control of the outcomes.[63] Examples include the bus satisfaction and public transport patronage targets.[64] It is wrong that local authorities are measured against targets over which they have no direct control, such as bus satisfaction or passenger numbers. Either local authorities need direct control over these services; or they should not be held responsible for them.

Ambitious targets

37. We heard that under the first round of Local Transport Plans, authorities were encouraged to be ambitious rather than realistic.[65] As Ms Alison Quant, Director of Environment at Hampshire County Council, explained, on LTP1 "we were all encouraged to be as aspirational as we could be on targets and there was not much checking whether they were reasonable and deliverable".[66] In theory 'deliverability' is included in the second Local Transport Plans because the Department's guidance expects authorities to prove that the targets are both challenging and realistic.[67] This appears to be difficult to achieve in practice. We heard evidence that this requirement creates something of a catch-22 situation for local authorities: if they meet the target it is considered insufficiently ambitious; if they fail to reach the target, they have underperformed.[68]

38. Some evidence suggests that the Government has pushed local authorities to stretch their targets further still. Mr Tony Matthews, Local Transport Plan Lead at Devon County Council, said that following review and feedback by the Government Office, the targets set for LTP2 are more aspirational than those set in the first round of plans.[69] Not all witnesses agreed that the targets set were too ambitious however. Sustrans, for example, implied that the targets showed a lack of ambition.[70] The cycling organisation, CTC, also criticised the Department's guidance for indicating that 'no reduction in cycle use' was a satisfactory minimum target for Local Transport Plans. The organisation pointed to the contrast with the first edition of the Local Transport Plan guidance which included the then current national target to treble cycle use between 2000 and 2010.[71]

39. We understand that in assessing the Local Transport Plan targets the Department is attempting to ensure a degree of consistency across the country in terms of how the Plans and progress are assessed. The role of central government in reviewing the targets adopted by local authorities is, however, problematic. AGMAPTA described the difficulties it had faced after the Department for Transport had become involved in adjusting its local targets:

The Greater Manchester bus patronage target […] was revised upward on DfT advice after encouraging early progress, but then performance fell back, leading to a missed target. It would have been preferable for the target to have been left unchanged to reflect the longer-term nature of such performance trends.[72]

40. Mr Bob Linnard, Director of the Regional and Local Transport Policy Directorate at the Department for Transport, described the Department's efforts in assessing the plans:

We have quite a complicated system within the Department for assessing the quality of the plans which involves not just one person with each plan, but cross-checks to try to ensure consistency across all 82 plans. We do as much as we humanly can to make this as fair as possible.[73]

The task of attempting to ensure consistency in targets across the country is a phenomenally difficult one given the very different geographical, demographic and socio-economic contexts in which the Local Transport Plans operate. This is, however, necessary under the current framework because the Department for Transport judges performance by authorities and rewards strong performance with larger capital settlements.

41. We understand the Department's intention to ensure that targets are challenging but realistic. This is not an easy task, and certainly not easily done from the centre. The Department should recognise that local authorities with local knowledge are best placed to determine appropriate targets. The catch-22 which faces authorities in target setting is untenable. It should not be assumed that where targets are met they were unchallenging; and where they were not met the authority underperformed. Progress should be judged on its own merits. Attempting to harmonise local authority targets across the country is an exceptionally difficult task, and one of questionable merit given the different priorities local authorities may have adopted. A more local focus in the Local Transport Plan framework would need to take this into account.

PERFORMANCE-RELATED FUNDING

42. The performance-related funding component in LTPs attracted both approval and criticism. The problems comparing performance in different authorities against different targets led unsurprisingly to accusations that the performance-related funding system was unfair.[74] In addition, there was a perceived unfairness about the fact that even 'improved' scores had still led to reduced funding because of the way the system operates. The South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Partnership demonstrated the problem:

The December 2005 settlement was particularly disappointing […] as, despite bringing our Local Transport Plan performance up by 17 percentage points to 75% on the previous year, we were still classed only as 'fair' and attracted a 5% reduction in our indicative allocation for 2006/07. The assessment of our provisional Local Transport Plan as 'promising' attracted no performance bonus.[75]

43. Witnesses from Greater Manchester (AGMAPTA) sought to explain why so few authorities felt they had benefited from the new system:

The performance related approach as adopted only allows for a small number of authorities to be excellent and hence rewarded. This is because all of the funding was included in the indicative allocations for local authorities; therefore in order to reward some authorities, others will have to lose money to make it available. Thus the thresholds have to move to enable a few authorities to be rewarded.[76]

44. Mott Macdonald suggested that the system might have unintended consequences, such as encouraging authorities to set less demanding targets.[77] Within the performance-related component, the Department has reportedly penalised authorities for diverging from the work programme set out in the Local Transport Plan, even though a goal at the outset of the LTP framework was that authorities would enjoy more flexibility over the five year cycle to re-prioritise programmes as required.[78] Local authorities also felt aggrieved that they had been penalised for non-delivery of projects that could not in fact be taken forward until Department for Transport decisions had been announced.[79] There is also a danger that penalising poor performance with reduced funding will serve to reinforce a lack of progress in struggling authorities.

45. We were told, however, that the threat of losing funding if performance levels are not achieved protects the level of revenue funding dedicated to transport. West Midlands CEPOG lost £2.3 million in the current year, something they see as "acting as a powerful argument in discussions about the use of resources at a local level, not to reduce transport expenditure."[80] The performance-related funding component could therefore be argued to be having the desired effect.

46. Given the inherent complexities of assessing performance across different authorities, it seems inevitable that performance-related funding will be considered unfair by many authorities. The assessors should not automatically consider changes to programmes as failure, and delays in delivery which are due to drawn out Department for Transport decision-making should not be allowed to harm the scoring. Given the questionable basis for national comparison, we are not convinced that the performance-related funding package is appropriate. But while funds are not ring-fenced, some incentive which encourages local authorities to fund transport is important.

Monitoring

47. Having set the national and local transport targets, local authorities are responsible both for implementation of the schemes that will achieve them and monitoring progress. Problems have been encountered in this important area of work. The Atkins review of Local Transport Plans found that: "the technical evidence-base and analysis underlying many of the first Local Transport Plans was weak and […] monitoring of outcomes remains an area of weakness."[81]

48. An unreliable evidence-base can cause problems. As Sustrans identified:

Many Local Transport Plans are still deficient in hard transport data, detailing who travels where and how and for what purpose. Without these it is very difficult to understand which problems are being addressed, and how much progress is being made. Trips are still often measured by distance, rather than numbers, thereby in building a huge bias against walking and cycling.[82]

Atkins confirmed that monitoring progress against cycling targets had been extremely difficult because of concerns that the data being collected were not appropriate.[83] We heard evidence from the North West Transport Activists Roundtable that, because many authorities have changed the data capture methods used over the period of the Local Transport Plans, it has become increasingly difficult to track performance.[84] The Local Authority Technical Advisers Group have also criticised the Department for altering the definition of some Best Value Performance Indicators during the plan period and in some cases the method of data collection.[85] It stated: "Where changes are made to methodologies no guidance is provided regarding how trends are expected to be accurately reported."[86]

49. Monitoring can be a sizeable and expensive activity when done thoroughly. In evidence, Sir Michael Lyons indicated that local authorities were burdened by the monitoring requirements of central government and drew attention to work carried out on behalf of the Department of Communities and Local Government. He told us that this research identified that: "80% of all of the information that has been collected is about central accountability as opposed to local accountability."[87]

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

50. Performance indicators are used to demonstrate progress towards the targets for the each year of the Local Transport Plan period. However, like targets, performance indicators must be measurable and meaningful. There was little guidance on setting performance indicators in LTP1 and far too many performance indicators were set.[88] These were for a mix of inputs (for example the money invested in bus priority measures), outputs (for example the number of bus services delivered) and outcomes (for example bus satisfaction achieved). The revised guidance for LTP2 has attempted to move local authorities towards more meaningful performance management arrangements.[89]

51. We welcome the efforts to set more meaningful performance indicators and trajectories of targets for the second round of Local Transport Plans. With an emphasis on outcomes, it should be possible to reduce the overall number of performance indicators against which local authorities report. Local authorities should strive to be consistent through the Local Transport Plan period in the measuring techniques and data which are used; constant changes hinder transparency.

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS

52. In order to check delivery against targets, local authorities are required to report the progress that has been made against the Local Transport Plan each year in their Annual Progress Reports. This process brings a degree of public accountability to local transport developments. Annual Progress Reports also indicate whether programmes are on track and having the impact sought.[90] Mott Macdonald drew attention to the benefit of 'proactive' rather than reactive use of the reports, arguing that they "are of most value if they drive improvement and lead to a regular re-evaluation of strategies and transport expenditure" and have succeeded in "shedding light on the quality of programme management and monitoring".[91]

53. Compiling Annual Progress Reports was nevertheless considered by some witnesses as a resource-intensive and time-consuming activity.[92] It was also thought to produce unreliable results.[93] This is because over a period of one year performance against outcome indicators can be erratic—true trends in performance can only be picked up over a longer timeframe. Indeed, the County Surveyors Society told us that "some authorities' rankings have swung dramatically in the space of one year, with little change in performance 'on the ground.' You do not become a good or bad transport authority overnight [...]"[94]

54. Efforts have been made by the Department to reduce the burden of producing Annual Progress Reports. The Department told us that it "plans to assess progress at a broadly biennial frequency in the future."[95] Exactly how this will fit into the Local Transport Plan framework is unclear, but there was support among local authorities and other witnesses for this development.[96] The Passenger Transport Executives Group suggested that the Department for Transport eventually move to three-yearly performance reports to fit in with financial planning cycles, and Local Transport Plans which cover six years.[97]

55. Local authorities criticised the current reporting arrangements for requiring outputs from major schemes within the same year that expenditure begins as being unrealistic.[98] The reporting requirements should accommodate the fact that some major projects span several financial years and there will be some delay before outputs can be measured.Disturbingly, we heard that some Annual Progress Reports included reported delivery of schemes which had not in fact been implemented.[99] We would not expect local authorities to make such serious mistakes in their reports to Government. It has been the diligent work of non-governmental transport forums which has identified these errors, not the local knowledge of the regional Government Office or investigations by the Department for Transport.

56. Annual performance against transport targets can be erratic and Annual Progress Reports are therefore not a good basis for judgements of trend in performance. Monitoring should be part of on-going management of programmes by the local authority. We welcome the Department's plans to replace the Annual Progress Report with a biennial review which should provide a more accurate picture of authorities' performance, as well as reducing some of their monitoring burden.

Delivery of local transport improvements

57. Some witnesses judged that local authorities had achieved a significant amount of progress in the first Local Transport Plan period.[100] Road safety improvements in particular were held up as a success of the new system. Improvements were largely seen as a result of the increase in capital funding which accompanied the LTP framework. Devon County Council, which is designated a Centre of Excellence for local transport delivery, told us that the increase in capital borrowing has "enabled the implementation of a wide range of integrated transport schemes which would not have previously been affordable."[101] Other witnesses felt however that even with the increase in capital investment, the resources available were insufficient to make much impact on local transport.[102] Local authorities will be submitting five-year performance reports to the DfT which will identify implementation over the first LTP period.[103]

58. The Minister was keen to stress that a significant change had been achieved in the delivery of transport improvements as a result of the introduction of the Local Transport Plan framework. Nevertheless, the Minister did acknowledge that delivery had not matched the ambition of the targets:

There were major enhancements in delivery. A substantial number of bus routes was provided, a significant increase in the number of cycle ways was provided, a number of interchanges were improved, a number of park-and-ride schemes were introduced; there was a step change in delivery as a result of LTP1. Were all those things exactly in line with what were set in LTP1 as the targets? Clearly not.[104]

59. In fact, delivery against the targets that were set was not impressive. As the table below shows, five years into the Local Transport Plan programme only 60% of authorities were on track to meet half or more of the core targets. The Department relies upon local authorities to deliver most of the Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets, which it agrees with the Treasury, and only two of these are currently on track: the road casualty reduction targets and bus satisfaction (despite bus patronage levels continuing to decline overall).[105]

Table 2: National and local targets assessed as "on track" by DfT 2005 (Ev 103)

Percentage of targets on track Number (%) of authorities Number (%) of authorities

Core targets set for LTP1[106] Local targets set for LTP1

>0% 85 (100%) 85 (100%)

>30% 79 (93%) 84 (99%)

>50% 51 (60%) 77 (91%)

>60% 33 (39%) 65 (76%)

>70% 32 (38%) 35 (41%)

>80% 4 (5%) 17 (20%)

>90% 4 (5%) 1 (1%)

60. Improvements to the safety of local roads are rarely controversial, and it is unsurprising that authorities looked for 'quick wins' against the road safety targets.[107] Some other aspects of transport strategy are however harder to accomplish and the steps needed to achieve them are more contentious. Progress against congestion, air quality and bus patronage was poor.[108] The consultants Atkins told us that a lack of political will, at both local and national level, is preventing the implementation of radical measures to influence travel demand and mode share, and improve road-use management.[109]

61. The gap between what was anticipated and what has been delivered in terms of local transport improvements makes it difficult to judge what has actually been achieved. We await with interest the five-year delivery reports covering the first round of Local Transport Plans which are being submitted to government. Although some excellent schemes have been implemented, on the existing evidence it is disappointing that there were not more transport improvements delivered as a result of the large increase in capital investment. The Department needs to consider what approach it will take if local authorities continue to judge certain aspects of the national transport strategy, such as air quality, as a low priority and dedicate few resources to it.

Staff and skills shortages

62. Delivery of the proposals set out in first round Local Transport Plans was delayed by a shortage of staff with the relevant skills.[110] Atkins' 2003 research report, commissioned by the Department for Transport, found that: "the speed of funding increase, unmatched in the early years of the Local Transport Plan by an increase in professional staff and fully developed and 'ready to go' schemes, is resulting in underspends for many Local Transport Plan programmes." The consultants found that local authorities were tackling this problem in a variety of ways, including use of contract staff and partnering agreements with consultants and construction companies.[111] These arrangements are a short-term solution for authorities that do not have the in-house staff and skills to deliver improvements. Such a strategy does not however assist 'institutional learning' in order to ensure that the authority has the skills to design and deliver proposals for the next Local Transport Plan. Local authorities should be aiming to retain staff and develop the expertise required.

Consultation and consensus

63. The requirement to consult with local people about transport proposals was a new process which slowed delivery in the initial stages of the Local Transport Plan period.[112] Other witnesses blamed the slow delivery on the need to achieve consensus among Local Transport Plan partners, particularly for the joint plans in metropolitan areas. Mr Neil Scales, of Merseytravel, told us: "You have to go through a lot of consultation at a local level. One of our corridors goes from the centre of Southport and it has taken five years to put the bus lanes in that particular corridor."[113] The Passenger Transport Executives Group concurred with this view:

In delivering bus priority […] good schemes are often held up or diluted by very local issues such as perceived loss of passing trade, or minor inconveniences in parking provision for residents. Despite strong policies to re-allocate road space in favour of buses, it is has proved difficult to achieve the political consensus necessary to deal with these local issues. This has led to major corridor proposals to promote bus reliability, and increase relative speeds, being watered down or deferred.[114]

There is a problem for those areas that must agree transport schemes across political and jurisdictional boundaries. Bus lanes are a classic example, involving collaboration between often multiple local highways authorities and a Passenger Transport Authority followed by a lengthy legislative process. All Local Transport Plan partners must work to achieve consensus as efficiently and speedily as possible if they are to retain their credibility with the public.

DELIVERY OF LONDON LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

64. As described previously, a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) is the statutory equivalent in London to a Local Transport Plan in the rest of England. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 each London borough must prepare an LIP showing how it proposes to implement the Mayor's Transport Strategy. The Mayor of London issued guidance on the preparation of these Plans in July 2004. Transport for London is currently working with the London boroughs on the first round of Plans.

65. The first LIP was approved in March 2006, for the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. At the time our inquiry was announced, the Local Implementation Plans of only three London boroughs had been approved by the Mayor. Transport for London told us that it expected to have approved a total of 31 Local Implementation Plans by December 2006. This is a delay of two and a half years from issuing the guidance to agreeing the first round of plans, and in addition to a four-year delay between the election of the Mayor and Assembly and the issue of the guidance. Transport for London told us the reason for the delay:

Experience of producing Local Implementation Plans for the first time has shown that many boroughs were not fully prepared for this new way of working. For example, this required them to consider a longer term strategy; issues affecting neighbouring boroughs; the setting of targets; and developing solutions across all modes. The original timetables put forward have been revised as a result of these and other external factors.[115]

66. There is the added discrepancy that the plans for individual boroughs are being approved at different times, with complete transition to the new framework expected to stretch over nine months. We were told that TfL funding will migrate from the Borough Spending Plan framework to the Local Implementation Plan system over the next two to three years. Under the Borough Spending Plan process boroughs bid annually to Transport for London for funding. Following the introduction of Local Implementation Plans, Transport for London funding will be allocated on the basis of the quality of each borough's Plan and the progress that has been made against it. Transport for London intends that this will give certainty of funding across several years, and tailoring of funding to the needs of individual boroughs.[116]

67. The Greater London Authority was introduced as a unique form of city-wide government in May 2000. It is perhaps predictable that progress on some policy areas, especially those which involve consultation with all 31 boroughs, might have been slower than was desirable in the first years of the Authority's operation. Nonetheless, the delays have already been significant and we urge Transport for London to ensure that the deadline to have all plans approved by December 2006 does not slip any further.

8 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (March 2000) Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans. DETR: London. Page 9 Back

9 Mayor of London (July 2004) Mayor's Transport Strategy: Local Implementation Plan Guidance. Transport for London. Back

10 Ev 31 Back

11 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (March 2000) Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans. DETR: London. Back

12 Department for Transport (December 2004) Full Guidance on Local Transport Plans: Second Edition. London. Back

13 Research by Somerset County Council found the average figure to be £113,835 (Somerset County Council, A Review of Local Authority Resources and Expenditure in Developing Second Local Transport Plans, 2006). East Sussex told us it cost between £80,000 and £100,000 (Ev 99); and Devon County Council estimated the cost at £200,000 (Ev 96) Back

14 Ev 93 Back

15 Ev 175 Back

16 Q85, Ev 93 Back

17 Ev 71, 175, 179, 183, 1, 34, 103, 205 Back

18 Ev 103 Back

19 Ev 71, 175, 6, 34, 56 Back