Memorandum submitted Devon County Council
SUMMARY
1. As a Centre of Excellence for Local Transport
Delivery and Beacon Authority for Road Safety, we welcome the
increased levels of Government investment in local transport funding
and strongly suggest that its scope is extended to encompass revenue
funding. We feel that LTPs should become part of the warp and
weft of national and European transport policy rather than a separate
thread.
LOCAL TRANSPORT
FUNDING
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?
2. The substantial and welcome increase
in local transport capital borrowing approvals between 2001-02
and 2005-06 has enabled the implementation of a wide range of
integrated transport schemes which would not have previously been
affordable. The introduction of the single capital pot has given
us more discretion to allocate capital funding to meet our priorities.
Our comments on the separate process for funding major transport
schemes are set out below.
3. Devon County Council has certainly spent
its full local Transport Plan allocations and has also supplemented
this funding from time to time from its own capital resources.
4. Cost increases on integrated transport
block schemes have been dealt with through adjustment to the programme
within each financial year. However, a significant problem was
encountered with a cost increase in the major scheme which Devon
had approved in Local Transport Plan 1. Delivery of this scheme
was delayed, through no fault of the County Council, by a challenge
in the High Court about the actions of the Department's Inspector.
The delay resulted in escalation of the scheme cost beyond that
which was originally approved, but the Department for Transport
were unwilling to meet the full extent of this cost increase;
in the end agreement was reached that the County Council would
contribute a part of the increase from its own resources.
Is the formulaic funding approach the most suitable
method for allocating transport investment? What has been the
impact of the performance-related component?
5. There is a risk that the formulaic funding
approach is seen to be rewarding failure, under-performance or
under-achievement, with higher levels of resources being allocated
to local transport authorities which are not meeting their targets.
This is partly offset by the performance-related component which
rewards local transport authorities, like Devon County Council,
that have produced well above average LTPs and Annual Progress
Reports. The indicative allocations over the five years of the
LTP have helped longer-term planning.
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?
6. The increase in capital borrowing approvals
has not been matched by similar increases in revenue funding:
we are capital rich and revenue poor. We would strongly press
for highway maintenance, road safety and public transport revenue
funding to be allocated through the LTP system. There is a particular
concern that despite capital allocations for highway structural
maintenance there is a growing backlog of highway repairs, both
in Devon and nationally.
7. The separate funding streams, eg the
rural bus subsidy grant, Rural Bus Challenge, school travel plan
bursaries, Cycle Demonstration Towns, have usefully supplemented
core LTP funding, for those authorities like Devon which have
been able to mount successful bids, but these initiatives can
lead to short-termism and difficult decisions have to be made
when the term of the grant expires.
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?
8. The Regional Funding Allocations process,
which gives clear guidance on those schemes which are regional
priorities, should help to avoid abortive expenditure for authorities
in preparing major schemes which will not be funded. However,
this makes it difficult for authorities to progress significant
schemes over £5 million pounds which are of importance locally
but are not regionally significant.
9. We hope that the current consultation
on "Changes to the policy on funding major projects"
will improve the process particularly for the reimbursement of
preparatory costs.
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?
10. We have a productive and mutually beneficial
working relationship with the Government Office for the South
West which has helped the process of LTP preparation. The DfT
guidance was clear and comprehensive but the subsequent amendments,
re-interpretations and additions have not been helpful or advantageous.
The second round of LTPs has been more focussed on meeting targets
and objectives and the delivery of value for money.
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?
11. The second round of LTPs has aimed to
achieve the shared central/local priorities for transport. The
DfT have not clearly articulated how LTPs are contributing to
the modern, efficient and sustainable transport system envisaged
in the "Future of Transport" White Paper.
How effective is the Local Transport Plan performance
management regime? Do the Annual Progress Reports give the necessary
transparency and rigour in assessing performance?
12. It is too early to judge the effectiveness
of LTPs. The Annual Progress Reports will be replaced by the July
2006 Delivery Reports covering 2001-06 and subsequent bi-annual
reporting of progress.
How successful is the balance between infrastructure
projects and travel planning initiatives?
13. We would welcome an explicit recognition
that supporting travel planning which complements investment in
infrastructure is a legitimate use of local transport capital.
24 April 2006
| 
