Memorandum submitted by the Local Government
Technical Advisors Group
TAG is a professional body representing over
300 senior technical officers of Local Authorities in Districts,
London Boroughs, Metropolitan Authorities and Unitary Councils
in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Responsibilities of our
representative Councils include highways, traffic, transportation
and parking and often town planning and economic development,
land drainage, coastal protection and environmental services often
including waste. They also often include buildings (on behalf
of other front line service departments) building design/architecture,
building control, cleansing, leisure and property assets.
Local Highway Authorities are responsible for
around 88% of roads in England, which carry approximately 65%
of car traffic and 34% of heavy goods traffic in terms of vehicle
miles and a much greater proportion in terms of trips. Additionally,
local authorities have responsibilities for other highways including
footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks and play key roles in the
planning and delivery of public transport. All journeys by their
nature begin and end on the local highway network.
Similarly and more importantly, in the overall
national context of provision of effective transport—the
majority of public transport and almost all walk and cycle trips
are accommodated on local highway networks.
The quality and condition of local highways
are highly variable which may not only be in part a factor in
the determination of the choice of travel mode but also in the
occurrence of accidents. Significant investment through the Local
Transport Plan (LTP) process has resulted in improvements; particularly
in safety and continuation of funding will be a significant factor
in achieving further improvement. Funding maintenance of the highway
network and balanced public transport remains problematic; the
funds delivered through the LTP have been welcomed but not permitted
significant progress to be made addressing the backlog of outstanding
maintenance to fund a decent public transport system.
Furthermore we are well short of the required
resources or even policy tools to deal with the consequences or
mitigation of road traffic growth, much of it generated by Central
Government's trunk road programme. The different level of order
of magnitude of funding available for measuring maintenance standards
through to implementation of improvements between local roads
and trunk roads results in significant distortions in the transport
system.
OUR INITIAL
VIEWS ON
THE QUESTIONS
RAISED IN
YOUR LETTER
ARE AS
FOLLOWS:
Have the local transport capital settlements met
what was expected and allowed delivery of the planned projects?
What have been the impacts on major transport schemes, and smaller
schemes? Have the full allocations been spent as planned? How
have cost increases been settled?
TAG welcomes the increased levels of local transport
investment, which has enabled the delivery of the majority of
local planned projects. However there still appears to be a bias
against providing enough funding for public transport including
light rail projects. It is considered that significant progress
has been made particularly in the road safety and accident reduction
work areas. The initial upturn in investment in the early years
of LTP1 presented problems due to skill shortages, however sustained
higher levels of funding is allowing skill shortages to be addressed.
Stability of future funding remains a key issue to ensure retention
and development of skills to provide effective delivery.
One area, which remains problematic however
is that of maintenance where funding has not been sufficient to
address the backlog of outstanding repairs, particularly with
respect to reconstruction. Given the on-going pressures associated
with revenue budgets it would appear that increases in the maintenance
block will be necessary to address the problems.
Agreement by the Department for Transport to
fund in part cost increases associated with major schemes has
been welcomed. However any unmet increases invariably results
in pressure to seek funding from the LTP block allocation, despite
the potential consequential impact on targets.
Is the formulaic funding approach the most suitable
method for allocating transport investment? What has been the
impact of the performance-related component?
TAG considers that the formulaic approach to
be generally an acceptable method of allocating transport investment
but it may need improving to reflect needs in different areas
better. The maintenance formula has been in place for a number
of years and it may be commended as a means of directing limited
resources to the areas of most need, however it is clear that
the overall level of funds available for distribution is insufficient.
There are also concerns regarding transparency associated with
the use of the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI's) and
the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey.
It is of concern that the BVPI's, which are
used to measure performance, have been subject to frequent change
and in the case of the highways maintenance BVPI's the definition
or method of data collection has changed in almost each year.
Refinement of any process is essential however such changes must
introduce instability and inaccuracy of measurement. Payment by
results is acceptable but the method of demonstrating success
and the causal link between action and outcome must be clearly
established and consistency introduced.
The benefit of the performance related component
is less clear, for example an APR score of 74% which was considered
to be "fair" resulted in a 5% cut in allocation, which
is not considered equitable. Similarly it is unclear how an LTP
initially assessed to be "promising" can move to being
considered "very promising" . If this component is to
remain, greater transparency is required in the process.
Do local authorities have adequate powers to raise
resources to fund local transport infrastructure? What other powers
could be useful?
The ability of authorities to raise funding
local transport infrastructure is very limited. The LTP process
provides reasonable access to funds for modest schemes, whereas
major projects incur significant development costs with little
certainty of outcome despite local demands. Revenue support, even
short-term pump priming funding is highly problematic to secure.
Where land values are buoyant and development
proposed, it is possible to secure contributions to local transport
projects through the planning system (Section 106) and in the
case of highway works through the Highways Act (Section 278).
However, regeneration logically requires planned infrastructure
provision with certainty of funding and delivery often in advance
of commercial development. The benefits of the transport investment
are likely to follow and be widespread, however there is no opportunity
to recover funding other than by central government through taxation.
Has the balance between revenue funding and capital
funding for transport proposals been appropriate? How well have
the different funding streams from the Department for Transport
and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister supported local transport
projects? Are transport services successful in securing sufficient
revenue funding?
Competing demands invariably place budgetary
pressures on transport revenue spend for local authorities. New
initiatives, such as Travel Planning and those associated with
the social inclusion agenda require additional revenue support,
which needs to be guaranteed for the long-term. In terms of revenue
budgets such initiatives may often be considered to be competing
for existing budgets. The bursary system introduced for School
Travel Planning is one example, whereby funding has been safeguarded
for transport and may be applicable for other areas, provided
the funding stream is maintained in the long term.
Maintenance funding is primarily determined
by the condition of all-purpose highways and revenue budgets are
directed accordingly. Given the limitations of funding resources,
the ability to adequately maintain other highways such as cycle
tracks, bridleways and footpaths, which are essential to the promotion
of alternative travel choices, is reduced.
The ability to fund balanced transport strategies
and arrest the decline and grow public transport requires a considerable
increase in revenue funding accompanied by some fundamental changes
in the legislation covering provision of bus services outside
London.
ODPM revenue funding is generally considered
adequate for its intended purpose but there is little evidence
of crossover between routine activities and specific transport
projects. Greater flexibility on permissible spend for both ODPM
and DfT funding would be welcome as well as additional resources
certainty of long term funding support.
How efficient is the bidding and scheme preparation
stage? What could be done to avoid local authorities wasting significant
resources on preparing and designing transport schemes which do
not get approval?
The fundamental difficulty with the current
approach is the pressure to submit a Major Scheme Business Case
as soon as possible, as this is the only method by which promoters
can determine whether their scheme is likely to be successful
in attracting funding. This can result in schemes being submitted
at the preliminary design stage, with significant uncertainties
associated with for example utility apparatus and possibly ground
conditions, resulting in poor costings for the project. This cost
estimate, including the Quantified Risk Assessment is likely to
be flawed but remains the baseline cost used by the DfT which
may view, any variations to then be the responsibility of the
promoter.
Preparation of the MSBC is in itself an extensive
and expensive process given the associated rigorous appraisal
and assessment process. It is perhaps a mark of the importance
attributed to the many local schemes submitted, in the knowledge
of the limited funds available, that promoters are not deterred
by the significant costs involved. Nevertheless, the process can
be considered to be wasteful of scant resources and any improvement,
which could result in the earliest indication of likely acceptance,
would be welcomed.
IN TERMS
OF LOCAL
TRANSPORT PLANNING:
Were the administrative process and timetable
for delivering Local Transport Plans appropriate? How helpful
was the guidance from the Department for Transport? How did the
second round of Local Transport Plans learn from the first, and
how could the process be further improved?
The final guidance for LTP1 was issued late
as were elements for LTP2, which did not assist their production.
These difficulties are exacerbated where LTP's are produced in
partnership, requiring agreement from all plan partners to amendments.
Improved integration on a regional basis would be desirable, but
will require longer development periods.
The focus of the LTP has changed with greater
emphasis being placed upon delivery planning. However, the level
of detail requested for the full period is of questionable value,
as in the future certainty of delivery must diminish and local
priorities inevitably change.
There appears to have been increasing pressure
towards convergence with the development of LTP2. Many LTP's have
very similar content, which may weaken its perceived relevance
to local communities. The degree to which each authority makes
progress against each of the national government policies must
be determined at the local level, if it is to be seen to have
relevance. Greater flexibility in recognition of local priorities
would benefit.
The preparation of the LTP and on-going monitoring
process is becoming increasing prescriptive and consuming significant
resources. The need to plan and monitor progress is accepted however
a balance needs to be stuck and it is considered that the current
system is too heavily focussed on control.
Where timescales are shortened, for whatever
reason, the ability to engage directly with local communities
invariably suffers. Ideally, greater community participation should
be built into the development process but this will only be beneficial
if coupled with the flexibility to reflect local priorities.
How well have the Local Transport Plans delivered
better access to jobs and services, improved public transport,
and reduced problems of congestion, pollution and safety? To what
extent has the Government's Transport Strategy fed into the second
round Local Transport Plans?
It is considered that LTP1 has made a difference,
however that difference is proportional to the sums invested and
can readily be masked by economic and socio-demographic changes.
The Government's Transport Strategy is strongly
embedded into the second round Local Transport Plans. DfT guidance
was clear in this respect, however there remains an element of
doubt regarding the commitment to all elements, given that some
may be considered to be locally unpopular.
TAG considers that more can be done to integrate
transport policies into other the work of other government departments
and thereby provide additionality.
How effective is the Local Transport Plan performance
management regime? Do the Annual Progress Reports give the necessary
transparency and rigour in assessing performance?
The need for performance management is accepted
but the APR process is considered to be overly mechanistic. To
provide accurate five-year forecasts of detailed outputs by individual
scheme is not considered practical and is likely to result in
failure. Programs need to be responsive to external events and
it is equally impractical and wasteful of resources to develop
programs of works for the whole five-year period in significant
detail. Additionally, the current system can focus on specific
failings whilst not necessarily giving sufficient recognition
to those elements which have exceeded predictions.
Reliance upon BVPI's with their ever-changing
measurement methodologies can result in authorities suffering
because of external economic and socio-demographic factors. Where
local indicators have been developed to overcome the perceived
shortcomings of the BVPI's they are ignored for measurement purposes.
Where changes are made to methodologies no guidance is provided
regarding how trends are expected to be accurately reported.
How successful is the balance between infrastructure
projects and travel planning initiatives?
Infrastructure projects deliver tangible benefits
across a number of policy areas but cannot be the solution for
transport issues. Travel planning initiatives (together with public
transport improvements) offer an opportunity to change travel
behaviour and influence travel choices. Progress is being made
however access to the necessary additional revenue funding could
be a limiting factor, which needs to be addressed.
TAG also considers that further work is required
to embed consideration of transport implications early in the
decision making process of all service delivery.
In conclusion, TAG considers that Local Transport
investment is essential for good transport and a healthy economy.
Transport problems require local solutions and an appropriate
balance needs to be struck between investment in local and national
transport infrastructure. Investment in nationally significant
projects should not be at the cost of local investment. Capital
investment needs to be supported by adequate revenue funding and
investment needs to be sustained for the long-term.
The costs associated with the development of
major schemes is significant and it is a measure of the demand
for such local schemes that promoters are willing to incur the
costs at risk, but efficiencies need to be introduced to reduce
abortive and wasteful use of resources.
The LTP process offers the opportunity to engage
with the local community to determine local transport priorities.
However, the current system affords insufficient opportunity for
effective engagement and is increasingly being directed by central
government targets, which may not therefore be considered relevant
by local communities. The development and monitoring processes
are resource intensive and may be better focussed on community
engagement, affording highest priority to issues of local concern.
Travel planning offers an opportunity to address
travel behaviour and influence travel choices but requires revenue
support, which is likely to be difficult to secure under current
arrangements. Appropriate models of service delivery can have
the greatest influence on travel demand and more needs to be done
to raise the transport implications decisions at the earliest
stages of decision making across all policy areas.
25 April 2006
| 
