Memorandum submitted by Atkins Transport
Planning
1. INTRODUCTION
Atkins Transport Planning welcomes the Transport
Committee's Inquiry into Local Transport Planning and Funding
and the opportunity to provide written evidence in relation to
research being undertaken for the Department for Transport (DfT).
[1]
Atkins is leading a consortium, which includes
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Warwick Business School, undertaking
a Long-Term Process and Impact Evaluation of the Local Transport
Plan (LTP) Policy. This Evaluation was commissioned by DfT in
September 2003 and, together with earlier research in 2002, is
considering whether the LTP policy is meeting its overall objectives,
how, and with what success, authorities are applying the policy
principles and what outputs and outcomes are being delivered.
A number of reports have already been prepared
as part of the study work programme, including:
— Part 1 Report (August 2002);
— Guidance Report (March 2004);
— Working with Weaker Local Authorities
(August 2004 and October 2005);
— Interim Report (August 2005);
and
— Monitoring and Reporting of
LTP Outcomes (February 2006).
These reports are either available on the DfT
website, or planned to become available shortly. Collectively,
they provide a substantial evidence base for the key issues being
examined by the Committee. They also make a number of recommendations
to the Department, and to local authorities, which the Committee
may wish to consider.
The work to date has also informed DfT's own
policy formulation, for example in relation to the guidance for
the second Local Transport Plans, published in December 2004.
The Final Report for the Evaluation is due to
be completed in the first half of 2007. It will take account of
the Committee's work in this Inquiry in defining its conclusions
and recommendations.
2. THE CHANGING
ROLE OF
LOCAL TRANSPORT
PLANNING
Many of the principles underlying the LTP policy
remain valid since its statutory introduction in the Transport
Act 2000. However, the framework has not remained unchanged since
its inception. In particular, the Government's approach has shifted
from the development of "aspirational" local transport
strategies, and a rationale for capital funding allocations, towards
delivery of effective schemes and programmes on the ground. The
Department has also increasingly emphasised the need for authorities
to demonstrate contribution towards national and local objectives
and targets.
The wider policy context of local government
and public services has also changed significantly since 2000
and continues to do so with far-reaching and complex implications
for local transport planning and delivery. There are essentially
four major areas of change:
— an increasing focus on the national
and regional policy agenda, including statutory Regional Transport
Strategies and agreement between Central and Local Government
of the Shared Priorities;
— a recognition of transport as
a means to wider corporate and community objectives, such as social
inclusion, health, sustainable communities and environmental protection;
— the Local Government Modernisation
Agenda, including greater community engagement, strengthened performance
management, and earned "freedoms and flexibilities";
and
— an emphasis on evidence-based
delivery and value for money, including greater scrutiny of LTP
Major Schemes and the need to demonstrate efficiency gains under
the Gershon Agenda.
These factors have increasingly influenced authorities'
delivery of their first LTPs and development of their second LTPs.
The second round also introduces a number of new requirements
for local authorities, including Accessibility Planning, the Network
Management Duty under the 2004 Traffic Management Act, Strategic
Environmental Assessment and the incorporation of Air Quality
Action Plans and Rights of Way Improvement Plans into the LTP
framework.
Local authorities have sometimes experienced
difficulty in maintaining a fully coherent and consistent approach
to local transport planning and funding in the light of the numerous
changing programmes, initiatives and targets. The Government,
in turn, has not always integrated and articulated the key messages
of change successfully in order to minimise uncertainty and potential
confusion from authorities in responding to the various agendas
coming forward.
3. OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE
LOCAL TRANSPORT
PLAN POLICY
The evidence has suggested consistently that
the LTP framework represents a popular Government policy. Overall,
the approach is strongly supported by local transport practitioners,
local and national stakeholders and the transport profession more
widely. Authorities have made genuine efforts to adopt the key
elements set out in the LTP guidance and are planning and delivering
programmes which are larger, broader, more inclusive and command
a higher profile amongst senior officers and members. DfT Guidance
is seen as generally useful and fit for purpose. There is evidence
of closer engagement between local authorities, the wider stakeholder
community, Government Offices and DfT.
In particular:
— there has been a step-change
in the level of consultation and partnership working amongst most
authorities;
— authorities are now using long-term
funding for more effective planning and delivery; and
— LTPs largely reflect the national
transport agenda, with a policy shift and increased expenditure
in favour of non-car modes. There is evidence that wider policy
goals are being considered.
However, application of the key LTP principles
remains variable across local authorities. For example:
— many authorities continue to
give transport a low priority at corporate level and fail to link
their transport planning and delivery to corporate, community
and service plans;
— working across policy areas
and administrative boundaries is often constrained by managerial
and political barriers;
— the linkage between local land
use and transport planning and the developing frameworks at the
sub-regional and regional level is only slowly developing;
— poor project management has
led to cost increased and reduced programme effectiveness in some
instances, with LTP Major Scheme delivery being a particular area
of concern;
— the technical evidence base
and analysis underlying many of the first LTPs was weak and, whilst
improvements are evident, target setting and monitoring of outcomes
remains an area of weakness;
— sharing of good practice and
benchmarking is often ad hoc rather than systematic; and
— the structure of funding, staffing
and skills and political decision making at local and national
level continue to be seen as significant barriers to achieving
a fully effective LTP policy.
Authorities, and stakeholder groups, have also
expressed concerns on some aspects of DfT's stewardship of the
LTP process. These include:
— the lack of equivalent revenue
funding allocations specifically for local transport;
— an early lack of transparency
in, and frequent changes to, the framework by which the Department
assesses authorities' performance and makes adjustments in capital
funding allocations;
— a gradual shift of transport
priorities towards national objectives under the banner of the
Shared Priorities, in place of the more "localist" agenda
set out in the original LTP Guidance;
— lack of dedicated powers to
secure improvements from key stakeholders in support of LTP objectives,
especially in relation to bus operators and the rail sector;
— perceptions of limited integration
between DfT and Other Government Departments in supporting wider
priorities, for example in support for transport infrastructure
to deliver housing growth and renewal set out in the Sustainable
Communities Plan; and
— the resource intensity of some
aspects of LTP preparation, especially in relation to the second
round of LTPs published at the end of March 2006, and timing of
the issue of Guidance.
4. LTP EXPENDITURE
AND DELIVERY
Our analysis shows that the first round LTPs
generally reflected the national transport objectives defined
in the 1998 Integrated Transport White Paper—environment,
safety, economy, accessibility and integration—as well as
a wide range of local agendas. The second round LTPs more closely
reflect the national priorities defined under the Shared Priorities—accessibility,
congestion, safety and air quality.
To achieve these objectives, authorities have
seen an increase in funding of two to three times from mid-1990s
levels. Following a hesitant start, most councils have now ramped
up their programmes to deliver larger spending programmes in line
with their increased allocations. There is little evidence that
authorities have used the flexibilities of Single Capital Pot
to transfer capital funding out of transport to other service
areas and indeed many have used supplementary bids, performance-related
funding, additional Government grants and external sources to
increase spending over and above LTP allocation levels.
A number of authorities have used the unsupported
borrowing powers available under Prudential Borrowing to increase
their transport spend, for example on highway maintenance. However,
the extent of this has been limited outside of London; it may
also be constrained in future by increased revenue requirements
to service borrowing liabilities unless matched by additional
revenue streams. Other powers for funding local transport, such
as Business Improvement Districts and hypothecation of road user
charging revenues, have yet to be taken up outside of London on
a major scale.
Encouragingly, authorities are now more likely
to be spending their allocations in line with their intended programme.
For those schemes which have linked programme delivery to target
delivery, this is an efficient use of resources. However, many
authorities have been slow to focus scheme delivery in this way,
suggesting that the increased resources may not always have been
targeted effectively.
The LTP process has widened the scope of initiatives
which authorities are required to plan and provide, particularly
re-balancing of investment between car and non-car modes. Whilst
some authorities were already moving in this direction under the
former Package Approach, the LTP policy has given greater impetus
to authorities to widen coverage of all modes and behavioural
and demand management measures, as well as broader policies such
as regeneration, air quality, health and climate change. There
are numerous examples of good practice which can be highlighted
as a result of LTP investment.
There has been some good progress with the introduction
of school and employer travel plans and other "smart"
measures, reinforced by Government funding for dedicated co-ordinator
posts within authorities. Recent research and guidance from the
Department is providing further incentives for authorities to
promote these measures in the second round LTPs. There is relatively
little empirical evidence on the overall effect of travel plans
in reducing traffic growth and congestion, however, and limitations
on revenue budgets and powers on external stakeholder organisations
also currently constrain councils' ability to achieve intensive
application of "smart" measures. The current work being
undertaken by the three Sustainable Travel Towns (Worcester, Darlington
and Peterborough) may provide additional evidence on these considerations
and offer a number of useful lessons for successful application.
With one single exception, no authority outside
of London has exercised powers in the Transport Act for the introduction
of demand management through road user charging or workplace parking
levies. This is in spite of a number of "good intentions"
set out in the first LTPs for further development. The Government
is now seeking to incentivise authorities to implement such schemes
through the Transport Innovation Fund.
The increase in revenue funding and expenditure
on local transport has lagged behind that of capital expenditure.
A strong viewpoint from councils, Government Offices and stakeholders
is that local transport funding is capital rich, but revenue poor.
Lack of revenue funding, resulting from a range of national and
local factors, has emerged as a consistent barrier to delivery
throughout our research and it seems likely this is limiting authoritie'
ability to fully achieve their LTP objectives.
5. ACHIEVEMENT
OF LTP TARGETS
The accuracy, consistency and robustness of
authorities' monitoring programmes is an area of weakness and
limits the extent to which it is currently possible to assess,
with total confidence, what outcomes LTPs are delivering at a
national level and the extent to which observed improvements are
due to the increase in local transport funding, the process principles
themselves and wider external influences. Atkins have recently
carried out more in-depth research in this area and made a number
of specific recommendations to the Department for improvements.
With this important caveat, performance against
national and local targets appears to have improved as authorities
have become more adept at delivering planned programmes. Authorities
now appear on track to deliver more of their core and local targets
than at the beginning of the LTP1 period, and performance against
local targets is better than performance on core targets.
To date two national targets are on track to
be met—the number of individuals and the number of children
killed or seriously injured. Bus satisfaction has improved in
over three quarters of authorities. However, bus patronage levels
continue to decline overall, despite significant improvements
in some county and unitary authorities. Despite increasing levels
of capital expenditure in cycling schemes, performance across
authorities is patchy and weaknesses in the monitoring approaches
used mean that many authorities do not have a clear picture of
change in cycling levels within their areas.
Changes in the collection and reporting of Best
Value road maintenance indicators prevents an overall assessment
of road condition at this stage, although more than half of authorities
report that they are currently "on track" to meet their
targets, reflecting the increase in funding since the 1990s. The
National Road Condition Survey confirms significant improvement
in the surface condition of local authority roads, whilst footway
condition appears to have remained stable in recent years.
In terms of local targets, most progress is
likely to have been made on targets relating to widening travel
choice, casualty reduction and physical improvements to bus interchanges.
Less progress is evident on targets relating to the environment
and the economy, including reductions in traffic growth, reduced
congestion, and more sustainable freight movement.
Authorities' publication of their LTP1 Delivery
Reports in July 2006 is expected to provide significantly more
evidence on key LTP outcomes and examples of what has been achieved
on the ground since 2000. Our evaluation work will be considering
these Reports as part of its overall analysis.
6. BARRIERS AND
ENABLERS TO
DELIVERY AND
EXTERNAL FACTORS
The volume of local transport schemes which
authorities are able to deliver on the ground is currently being
limited by a number of factors. These include lack of revenue
funding relative to capital allocations; the rising cost of construction
materials, highway maintenance work, contractors and consultants;
and increasing tender costs.
As set out above, lack of revenue funding has
been consistently identified as the main barrier to delivery.
Rising costs appear to have become a significant barrier over
the last year or so, and is likely to become increasingly relevant
as most authorities are now spending their full allocation. There
is evidence that increases in the tender costs of local bus contracts
is impacting on authorities ability to maintain effective public
transport services outside of the commercial network.
Staff and skills shortages continue to be an
important barrier, but there is evidence of a general improvement
across many authorities and more widespread use of private sector
service providers. The commercial priorities of external stakeholders
(especially bus and rail operators) continue to limit integration
with LTP objectives and progress in many authorities, although
there are a number of notable exceptions.
Time-consuming and ineffective consultation,
and lack of member support delayed the delivery of many schemes
in the initial years of the LTP. However, these barriers have
become less relevant as authorities have become more adept at
managing and delivering the LTP process and DfT's assessment of
authority performance has become more focused on delivery of the
planned programme and targets.
A sizeable proportion of LTP Major Schemes have
not been delivered as planned. There is consistent evidence of
frequent delays and cost increases. This is due to a range of
factors, including poor initial scheme specification, changes
due to stakeholder consultation and requirements of statutory
agencies, land ownership, tender price inflation and changes in
political control. As a result, some high-profile light rail schemes
had seen DfT support withdrawn, whilst others have been remitted
to the Regions for prioritisation against the newly defined Regional
Funding Allocations. The Department has recently issued revised
Major Scheme Guidance aimed at addressing a number of the planning
and delivery problems experienced in the first round, although
there is a general view that it will be more difficult to win
funding for Major Schemes in the second round through the mainstream
LTP process.
Authorities that are able to deliver major and
integrated transport schemes offering good value for money appear
to be those where effective partnership working has been developed,
there is adequate staffing and skills capacity, there is strong
corporate and political support aligned with LTP objectives, and
effective programme and performance management processes are in
place. The Department and Government Offices have also initiated
a range of advice, engagement activities and interventions to
improve authorities' performance, both overall and for specific
councils classified as "weak" in terms of their delivery.
There are a range of factors in the external
environment which influence authorities' ability to meet their
LTP objectives and targets. These include wider transport trends,
socio-economic factors and random and unforeseen events. These
factors impact on travel demand, attitudes and behaviour independently
of LTP policies and investment, and can also have indirect political
and corporate impacts in terms of increasing or undermining local
political will to pursue particular policies.
Unintended impacts of the LTP process include
staff shortages and rising staff and consultancy costs, driven
by the significant increase in local transport funding and shortage.
7. PATTERNS OF
PERFORMANCE
DfT's annual assessment of LTPs and APRs provides
a measure of how successfully authorities are applying the principles
of the policy. The assessment process itself has evolved over
the last five years. While the 2001 LTP assessment was largely
a reflection of the application of the process and the quality
of the document produced, there has been an increasing emphasis
placed on delivery and targets.
The Department is also increasingly linking
a proportion of LTP funding to authorities' demonstration of the
"quality" of their local transport planning and evidence
of effective delivery. Our evidence suggest that whilst such funding
acts as an incentive on authorities to improve their performance,
they also appear to be strongly influenced by their perceived
ranking against each other, the score category assigned by the
Department (eg "excellent" "average" "weak"
) and, in some instances, the contribution of the LTP/APR score
to their overall Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) score.
Analysis of LTP/APR assessment scores shows
that whilst metropolitan, county and unitary authorities showed
a wide range of LTP "quality" in 2000, performance has
narrowed as authorities have had to demonstrate a wider range
of competencies focusing on expenditure, delivery and monitoring
and management of targets. Metropolitan LTPs, in particular, have
struggled to maintain strong performance against DfT criteria.
Difficulties in delivering large complex programmes across a number
of Metropolitan Highway Authorities, sometimes with differing
political control, and the need to co-ordinate activities with
Passenger Transport Executives appear to be key factors behind
their performance.
An analysis of the individual elements of the
assessment scores for 2005 shows authorities are judged by DfT
to be now performing strongly on scheme delivery and expenditure
against programme. Authorities' performance is generally being
compromised by progress on targets and objectives. The Department's
assessment of LTP1 Delivery Reports later in 2006 will provide
further evidence of performance for the whole of the first round.
Our research identifies a number of specific
corporate and technical factors which affect authorities' overall
performance. These are set out in the Interim Report as well as
the two reports completed under the Working with Weaker Local
Authorities programme in 2004 and 2005.
8. THE TRANSITION
TO THE
SECOND ROUND
The second round Local Transport Plans were
submitted to DfT at the end of March 2006. Our research into the
"provisional" LTP2s in late 2005, most of which were
assessed as "promising" by DfT shows that most authorities
have set objectives focused on the Shared Priorities and have
set outcome targets which are based on stronger evidence and analysis
compared to the first round. Most authorities have also related
the LTP programmes closely to the "planning guideline"
for integrated transport and maintenance set by the Department
for 2006-11. There also appears to be more of focus in the plans
on "smart" measures and demand management, reflecting
strengthened DfT Guidance in these areas.
Authorities have commented to the research team
that the LTP2 Guidance is comprehensive, relevant and helpful
to authorities in preparing their Plan, and provides a good indication
of the Department's requirements for the second round. We also
believe that authorities generally remain supportive of the LTP
policy overall; regional workshops planned for later in 2006 will
seek to confirm this conclusion.
However, there is consistent evidence that authorities'
development of LTP2 has been resource intensive, especially given
the introduction of a number of new requirements such as Accessibility
Planning and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Whilst authorities
seem to generally understand the Department's objectives for the
second round, there are also a number of practical and technical
challenges. These include developing "challenging and robust"
targets, practical techniques for demonstrating value for money
and achieving closer integration of capital and revenue budgets.
In terms of capital allocations, significant
funding for local transport is being maintained into the second
round. Our evidence suggests that authorities recognise this and
generally support the introduction of a formulaic approach to
determining the integrated transport block from 2006 onward. Some
authorities are likely to see significant shifts in LTP funding
over the next five years as the formula is phased in, however,
whilst there is a perception that insufficient account has been
taken of the transport investment needs resulting from housing
growth and renewal, for example in the Thames Gateway or in relation
to LTP Major Schemes. It is also not yet clear how LTP funding
will be integrated with other sources such as the Community Infrastructure
Fund and Transport Innovation Fund.
Looking ahead, there are a range of major policy
initiatives which could potentially have major implications for
the future of local transport planning in England, and the development
of the third round of LTPs for 2011-16. These include the continued
modernisation of local government, evolution of regional transport
planning and delivery and the current debate on "city regions."
A new Local Government White Paper is expected. The Lyons Review
of Local Government Finance is currently ongoing, but its recommendations
may have significant implications for the balance of funding of
local public services and whether new forms of funding could be
introduced for both capital and revenue transport expenditure.
9. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The evidence suggests that the Government has
delivered significant success in its policy for local transport
planning and funding. This conclusion is based on the following
facts:
— significantly larger capital
budgets are being allocated and spent on local transport;
— larger and broader programmes
are being delivered;
— a greater number and range of
stakeholders are being consulted, engaged and encouraged to become
active partners in improving transport in their local areas;
— delivery is increasingly focused
on council's intended programmes and improving in quality and
effectiveness; and
— councils are increasingly capable
of monitoring the outcomes of their programme delivery and demonstrating
some positive progress towards national and local objectives.
However:
— transport remains a relatively
low priority for many authorities compared to other policy areas,
such as education, social services and housing;
— some transport services are
poorly linked to wider policy agendas, tied into sufficient resourcing
and funding streams, and losing the potential of delivery through
partnership;
— the variation in performance
between councils in terms of their application of the LTP process
and effectiveness of delivery remains significant with insufficient
transfer of good practice;
— there remain important questions
over the extent to which LTPs are delivering key outcomes against
the targets set, particularly in the face of continuing economic
growth, social change and rising demand for travel, especially
by car;
— persistent internal and external
barriers continue to constrain what can be achieved, and it is
not yet clear how some key targets, such as congestion and bus
patronage, will be achieved without a significant change in policy
from Central and Local Government;
— funding levels remain uncertain
and more tightly constrained for 2006-11 than the first LTP round.
Revenue funding remains particularly problematic without a clear
policy on how the imbalance with capital resources can be resolved
except at the margins;
— the precise roles and responsibilities
between local and regional transport planning and delivery is
still evolving and the end-state is unclear;
— staffing and skills remain a
major constraint, especially given the broader range of competencies
now required for transport planners;
— robust and informative monitoring
and performance management techniques continue to be under-developed,
their importance to successful delivery is not always appreciated
and they fail to inform decision-making; and
— a lack of political will, at
both local and national level, continues to limit delivery of
"radical" measures which will really impact on the key
indicators of travel demand, mode share and effective management
of road use in the long-term.
10. NEXT STEPS
IN THE
EVALUATION
The LTP Evaluation is now in its final year
and is intended to produce an overall analysis of the first round
2001-06, in terms of process and outcomes, as well as initial
consideration of the transition to the second round for 2006-11.
The findings and the recommendations of the Committee will be
an important element of the evidence base for this work. Further
work in coming months will include:
— a review of the LTP1 Delivery
Reports, when they are published in July 2006;
— a Local Authority Survey, to
be undertaken between August and October 2006;
— a series of regional and national
workshops with LTP practitioners and selected stakeholders, to
be undertaken in November 2006; and
— engagement with local authorities
on a case study basis in late 2006 and early 2007.
The Final Report of the study is intended to
be published in the first half of 2007.
Atkins would be pleased to provide oral evidence
on this written submission and the specific questions raised by
the Committee in its Inquiry Terms of Reference in due course.
12 May 2006
1 The views set out in this paper are those of the
Atkins research team and do not necessarily represent the views
of the Department for Transport. Back
| 
