Targets and Monitoring
Performance Monitoring
The Local Transport Plan (LTP) contains a set of performance indicators and targets which will be used to monitor our progress in delivering national, regional and local objectives. This includes a set of mandatory indicators relating to the Shared Priorities for Transport and part of the Best Value regime, as well as locally relevant indicators to reflect local priorities.
Our targets focus on outcomes - either key outcomes that directly measure the achievement of the Shared Priorities (e.g. accessibility indicators) or intermediate outcomes which represent proxies or milestones towards key outcome targets (e.g. bus user satisfaction). We have also included a limited number of contributory output indicators to measure the delivery of schemes, policies or initiatives that will contribute towards the achievement of targets. A full list of indicators is included at the end of this section.
Links between targets and the LTP wider objectives are illustrated in Figure 1.4 below.
Figure 4 Links between Targets and LTP Objectives
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets and Trajectory Setting
Targets have been set for all mandatory and some local indicators. In setting realistic and challenging targets that reflect local circumstances we have taken into account a number of factors, including:
- The need to reflect wider policy objectives e.g. meeting air quality standards;
- The performance delivered from LTP expenditure over the first LTP period;
- The planned level of investment over the second LTP period based on planning guideline funding levels; and
- The potential for improved performance (through greater efficiency in implementation or the influence of critical mass) over the second LTP period.
Further detail on the rationale for specific targets and how they will be monitored is outlined in the Targets and Monitoring Tables set out below.
We have set detailed trajectories for each target to illustrate the rate of progress we intend to make, year on year, towards the overall target. Unless otherwise stated, linear trajectories have been assumed between the baseline and the target date.
Following the submission of the Provisional LTP in July 2005, a benchmarking exercise was carried out to compare the County Council’s targets and monitoring proposals with those of other local authorities. The purpose was twofold; firstly, to assess our targets and monitoring arrangements against those set by other authorities and secondly, to identify examples of good practice that might be applied to our circumstances.
The Provisional LTP submissions of 18 local authoritiesi were reviewed. Authorities that were felt to be broadly comparable in characteristic and size to Warwickshire were selected, although individual details obviously vary considerably in each authority.
A selection of both mandatory and local targets/indicators were reviewed across all 18 authorities. It was found that there is a wide variation in both the time periods over which targets are set and in the types of data and collection methodologies that are used to set and monitor the targets. Due to this variation, detailed evaluations are difficult to make, as in most cases it is not possible to confirm that the comparison is of ‘like with like’. However, the exercise was useful in as much as we were able to confirm that the County Council’s targets and monitoring are not radically different from the majority and indeed, appear challenging but reasonable for our own circumstances.
This local exercise has subsequently been supplemented with reference to the central database of indicators and targets in Provisional LTPs which has been compiled for the DfT by Atkins (published on the Local Transport Planning Network website in January 2006). The central database does not allow for a detailed evaluation of targets to be made as only the absolute target level (or general target trend), rather than relative improvement, is shown. However as with our local exercise, we have been able to confirm that our own target levels are comparable with those from similar authorities. A comparison against absolute target levels shows that, of all the core indicators, we only fall within the bottom quartile in the area of cycling. Our target for the cycling core indicator is to maintain cycling levels at 2004 levels. We consider this is stretching for our local circumstances, which have seen an overall trend of declining cycle use in recent years. Furthermore, the growth targets set by the majority of authorities in their Provisional LTPs are low, with 38% of authorities setting a growth target of between 0.1-2%, and a further 28% setting a target of between 2.1-5%.
Monitoring and Review of Targets
The County Council has a robust system for monitoring and reviewing targets and performance. This includes:
- Quarterly meetings held with senior officers to review progress towards targets and links with scheme delivery. This enables any areas of under-performance to be identified at an early opportunity and, where relevant, for adjustments to the capital programme to be made to put targets back on track;
- Ongoing scheme evaluation to ensure that schemes are effective in contributing towards targets; and
- A regular review of targets (through the Annual Progress Report process) to ensure that targets remain realistic and challenging. Trajectories have been set for each target so that year-on-year progress can be assessed.
In addition, we are currently piloting the inclusion of LTP indicators and targets in a corporate performance management system. This allows clear links between the LTP and corporate objectives to be identified and allows for regular reporting of progress towards LTP indicators and targets.
Identifying and Managing Risks
In setting targets, consideration needs to be given to the possible risks that could lead to them not being achieved and how these can be managed. A number of risks are specific to individual targets and these are identified below in the Targets and Monitoring Tables section. In addition, there are a number of general risks relating to scheme programming and delivery which need to be managed. Examples of these general risks and how they are managed are outlined in the table below.
|
Risk |
Management of Risk |
|
Cost overrun on schemes resulting in a reduction in number of schemes completed |
Early contractor involvement combined with robust estimating; monthly monitoring of project costs |
|
Underspend on annual programme resulting in a loss of funds over the LTP period |
Quarterly review of annual capital programme |
|
Insufficient design or contractor resource |
Additional resources available through our partnering arrangement with Arup |
| Inability of the County Council to take up full LTP settlement due to borrowing repayment costs | Lobbying of Government |
Changes to Indicators and Targets since Submission of the Provisional LTP
A number of amendments have been made to indicators and targets since the submission of the Provisional Local Transport Plan. These are outlined below.
|
Indicator / Target area |
Amendment and Reason for Amendment |
|
Bus Performance – Bus Punctuality (all services) |
Baseline data was unavailable for this indicator for the Provisional Local Transport Plan. Baseline data has subsequently been collected and a target has been set. |
|
Bus Performance – Bus Punctuality (tendered services) |
Baseline data was unavailable for this indicator for the Provisional Local Transport Plan. Baseline data has subsequently been collected. However the sample size for tendered services is small and not considered robust enough to establish a baseline figure or set a target. We will review whether additional monitoring can be carried out cost effectively to allow reliable reporting against this indicator. |
|
Mode Share of Journeys to School |
The target has been amended to reflect the results of the latest school travel survey which, in accordance with DfT guidelines, now includes car sharing as a mode of travel to school. Journeys undertaken by car sharing have therefore been excluded from the target figure and the baseline year has been updated to 2005/06. |
|
Mode Share of Journeys to Work (companies with a travel plan) |
This target was adopted during the life of the first LTP following the adoption by the County Council of an Interim Practice Note on Travel Plans for Developers and has been carried forward to LTP2. The indicator monitors the usual mode of travel to work for companies who have introduced a travel plan as part of a S106 planning agreement. Monitoring is on an annual basis. However difficulties have been experienced in collecting data to report against this indicator, in part due to the time delay (it can take several years between setting targets through the planning process and the requirement for companies to monitor the plans one year post occupation of the site) and also due to a reliance on companies to supply data. To ensure that we can reliably report progress in this area, we are proposing to introduce an additional indicator to measure the proportion of the workforce in Warwickshire covered by a travel plan. In choosing a suitable alternative indicator we have referred to the list of local indicators included in the LTP2 Performance Indicators and Targets database. We have also adopted one of the two recommended definitions for the indicator, as listed in the DfT’s advice note on Indicators for Second Local Transport Plans. |
|
Accessibility |
In the Provisional LTP we stated that targets would be set for each of the indicators measuring access to health, employment and education destinations, as expressed by journey times and monitored annually using Accession software. We have subsequently carried out more detailed work as part of our accessibility assessments and have found a number of limitations which have deterred us from setting targets for specific destination types, as detailed below:
In the interim we will continue to report progress against these indicators. In addition, a general accessibility target has been set for Access to Main Centres. This has been chosen to reflect the role of main centres in providing opportunities to access a range of services and facilities. |
|
Safety |
In its 2005 Guidance on Local Transport Plans the Government put forward two sets of standards for casualty reduction targets: 'satisfactory' and 'stretching'. In our provisional plan we stated that we would consider whether the stretching targets are achievable in Warwickshire and acknowledged that commitment from the Highways Agency and the Police would be crucial. In September 2005 we held a joint workshop with the Highways Agency and the Police to discuss the way forward. As a result of discussions we have decided to adopt the stretching targets. Although the stretching targets are hugely challenging, they will save great human misery. The safety strategy set out in the Provisional Local Transport Plan has been adapted and improved to help us meet the challenging targets. In addition, we are seeking to include the stretching target for people killed or seriously injured in our local public service agreement ('LPSA2'). This will help us promote the targets to our partners and the community and will assist in achieving the resources needed to meet them. |
|
Air Quality |
In the Provisional Local Transport Plan we set a target to reduce the number of exceedences of the national air quality standards and objectives between 2005 and 2010. We stated that we were carrying out a modelling assessment in support of the Air Quality Strategy to highlight the likely reductions in road traffic required to remove air quality exceedences in the County by 2010. The assessment has concluded that a target of retaining traffic volumes in areas of poor air quality (aside from Coleshill – see paragraph below) at 2004 levels by 2011 is likely to achieve compliance with the national air pollutant standards, particularly for NO2. In Coleshill the air quality problem relates to motorway traffic rather than urban traffic, as with the other four poor air quality areas. Given this, the above target of retaining 2004 traffic volumes by 2010 will not apply to Coleshill. |
Targets and Monitoring Tables
Number of Bus Passenger Journeys (All Routes) (BV102); Number of Bus Passenger Journeys (Quality Bus Corridor & Quality Bus Initiative Routes)
Links to Wider Objectives
Public transport patronage targets represent a proxy towards the key outcome targets of congestion and accessibility. Meeting targets in these areas will therefore contribute towards the LTP wider objectives of:
- A fairer, more inclusive and accessible transport system;
- A full employment and a strong, sustainable economy; and
- A reduction of transport impact on the environment.
Monitoring Methodology and Target Setting
|
Indicator: |
No. of bus passenger journeys (BV102) |
|
Target |
To increase the number of bus passenger journeys to 11.75m by 2010/11 |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (mandatory) |
|
Baseline: |
2004/05: 11.16m (NB. 2003/04 base has not been used as the method of calculating BV102 changed in 2004/05 and the 2003/04 figure is not comparable) |
|
Horizon: |
2010/11: 11.75m |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator uses data collected for the Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI102) and reports data from bus operators on the number of passengers boarding in the authority area. Reporting for this indicator is annually. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The target is to increase the number of bus passenger journeys by 5% by 2010/11. In setting the target consideration has been given to recent trends in bus patronage within the County and the ability of the County Council to bring about change given planning guideline funding levels. Over recent years bus patronage levels have been subject to fluctuation due to a number of commercial service withdrawals. Despite this uncertainty in the commercial network the overall trend in Warwickshire has been a slight increase in patronage of around 0.85% per annum. This is in part due to the success of Quality Bus Corridor initiatives which have seen patronage increases of between 10-35%. Our target is to maintain this level of growth over the LTP2 period. |
|
|
Indicator: |
No. of bus passenger journeys (Quality Bus Corridors) |
|
Target |
To increase the number of bus passenger journeys on Quality Bus Corridors by 15% |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (local) |
|
Baseline: |
2003/04: 100 (indexed) |
|
Horizon: |
2010/11: 115 |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator uses patronage data collected from bus operators on routes upgraded as part of the Quality Bus Corridors initiative. A comparison with before data gives the percentage increase. Reporting for this indicator is annually for routes upgraded. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The target is to increase the number of bus passenger journeys on routes upgraded as part of the Quality Bus Corridor initiative by 15%. This target is carried forward from the first LTP, where development of Quality Bus Corridors has shown increased patronage levels of between 11-35%. |
|
|
Indicator: |
No. of bus passenger journeys (Quality Bus Initiatives) |
|
Target |
To increase the number of bus passenger journeys on Quality Bus Initiatives by 10% |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (local) |
|
Baseline: |
2004/05: 100 (indexed) |
|
Horizon: |
2010/11: 110 |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator uses patronage data collected from bus operators on routes upgraded as part of the Quality Bus Initiatives. A comparison with before data gives the percentage increase. Reporting for this indicator is annually for routes upgraded. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The target is to increase the number of bus passenger journeys on routes upgraded as part of the Quality Bus Initiatives (QBI) by 10%. |
|
Key actions of local government and partners required to achieve the targets
Local Government
- Continuation of Quality Bus Corridor and Quality Bus Initiatives to upgrade key bus routes;
- Improving the availability of public transport information through provision of information at bus stops and expanding public transport information on the County Council’s website;
- Within the network management duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004, to ensure that the day to day management of local highway network allows for the expeditious movement of all highway users, including buses; and
- Continuation of dialogue and exchange of information and views between local bus users, local authority officers and bus operators through area based bus forums to ensure that local needs are reflected in bus service provision.
Local Partners
- Joint investment and promotion of schemes, e.g. Quality Bus Corridor and Quality Bus Initiatives;
- Commitment of the main bus operators within the County to drive up standards on commercial services, including promotion and marketing; and
- Willingness by operators to enter into a bus punctuality performance partnership.
Principal risks to the achievement of the target, and how these will be managed
- Changes to the way commercial services in the County are operated which have the effect of making bus services less attractive to users or potential users e.g. service withdrawals, high fare increases, unreliability and punctuality related to maintenance and staffing levels. By working closely with the main operators in the County (including through a Bus Punctuality Partnership) we will seek to reconcile commercial interests of bus operators with user needs and expectations;
- Risks associated with traffic and highway conditions, causing difficulties with bus operations and reducing the quality of the bus services on offer. This risk will be managed through the authority’s network management duty to minimise disruption on the highway and improve traffic flows. Where works on the highway are planned we will work with operators to ensure that bus users are well informed of any alterations; and
- Lack of willingness by major operators to work in partnership with the authority on joint initiatives.
Bus Satisfaction (all services) (BV104) & Bus Satisfaction (tendered services)
Links to Wider Objectives
Public satisfaction targets represent a proxy towards the key outcome targets of congestion and accessibility. Meeting targets in these areas will therefore contribute towards the LTP wider objectives of:
- A fairer, more inclusive and accessible transport system;
- A full employment and a strong, sustainable economy; and
- A reduction of transport impact on the environment.
Monitoring Methodology and Target Setting
|
Indicator: |
Bus satisfaction (all bus services) (BV104) |
|
Target |
For 53% of all respondents (to a user satisfaction survey) to be satisfied with local bus services by 2009/10 |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (mandatory) |
|
Baseline: |
2003/04: 47% |
|
Horizon: |
2009/10: 53% |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator uses data collected for the Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI104) and reports satisfaction levels amongst all respondents (bus users and non-bus users) to a satisfaction survey. Reporting for this indicator is triennially. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The target is to increase satisfaction levels by 8% by 2009/10 (NB. the horizon year has been set to coincide with the triennial survey). In setting the target consideration has been given to past performance in this area and the ability of the County Council to bring about change. Over recent years bus satisfaction levels have remained fairly constant at around 45%. We therefore consider that our target to increase satisfaction levels by 8% is ambitious. With 85% of the bus network in Warwickshire being operated commercially, our ability to achieve this target will depend on close partnership working with bus operators to improve standards. |
|
|
Indicator: |
Bus satisfaction (tendered bus services) |
|
Target |
For 70% of all respondents (to a user satisfaction survey) to be satisfied with local tendered bus services by 2009/10 |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (local) |
|
Baseline: |
2003/04: 62% (NB. this represents the average of satisfaction ratings for reliability (62%), cleanliness (55%) and driver friendliness (68%)) |
|
Horizon: |
2009/10: 70% |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator uses data from satisfaction surveys carried out on subsidised services which the County Council is responsible for. Reporting for this indicator is annually. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The target is to increase satisfaction levels from 62% to 70% by 2010/11. In setting the target consideration has been given to past performance in this area and the ability of the County Council to bring about change. Over recent years bus satisfaction levels on tendered services have shown an increase. Our target to increase satisfaction levels further demonstrates the County Council’s commitment to improving the local bus network within Warwickshire. |
|
Key actions of local government and partners required to achieve the targets
Local Government
- Continuation of Quality Bus Corridor and Quality Bus Initiatives to upgrade key bus routes;
- Improving the availability of public transport information through provision of information at bus stops and expanding public transport information on the County Council’s website;
- Within the network management duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004, to ensure that the day to day management of local highway network allows for the expeditious movement of all highway users, including buses; and
- Continuation of dialogue and exchange of information and views between local bus users, local authority officers and bus operators through area based bus forums and the West Midlands Passenger Transport Users Forum (WMPTUF) to ensure that local needs are reflected in bus service provision.
Local Partners
- Joint investment and promotion of schemes, e.g. Quality Bus Corridor and Quality Bus Initiatives;
- Commitment of the main bus operators within the County to drive up standards on commercial services, including promotion and marketing; and
- Willingness by operators to enter into a bus punctuality performance partnership.
Principal risks to the achievement of the target, and how these will be managed
- Changes to the way commercial services in the County are operated which have the effect of making bus services less attractive to users or potential users e.g. service withdrawals, high fare increases, unreliability and punctuality related to maintenance and staffing levels. By working closely with the main operators in the County (including through a Bus Punctuality Partnership) we will seek to reconcile commercial interests of bus operators with user needs and expectations;
- Risks associated with traffic and highway conditions, causing difficulties with bus operations and reducing the quality of the bus services on offer. This risk will be managed through the authority’s network management duty to minimise disruption on the highway and improve traffic flows. Where works on the highway are planned we will work with operators to ensure that bus users are well informed of any alterations; and
- Lack of willingness by major operators to work in partnership with the authority on joint initiatives.
Bus Performance (all services) (LTP5)
Links to Wider Objectives
Public transport performance targets represent a proxy towards the key outcome targets of congestion and accessibility. Meeting targets in these areas will therefore contribute towards the LTP wider objectives of:
- A fairer, more inclusive and accessible transport system;
- A full employment and a strong, sustainable economy; and
- A reduction of transport impact on the environment.
Monitoring Methodology and Target Setting
|
Indicator: |
Bus performance – punctuality for all services (LTP5) |
|
Target |
To increase punctuality (less than 1 minute early or 5 minutes late) for all bus services to 87% by 2010/11 |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (mandatory) |
|
Baseline: |
2005/06: 80.5% |
|
Horizon: |
2010/11: 87% |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator records the percentage of buses departing within a window of 1 minute early and up to 5 minutes late and is measured twice a year using bus punctuality surveys. The methodology for monitoring bus punctuality is in accordance with the guidance issued by the DfT in June 2005 (‘Methodology for the Bus Punctuality Indicator (LTP5)’). Data collection allows for punctuality to be measured at start points, intermediate timing points and non-timing points. For frequent service routes punctuality is expressed as average excess waiting time. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The baseline position for bus punctuality in 2005/06 is 80.5%. This figure combines recorded measurements of bus punctuality at start points, intermediate timing points and non-timing points. A target of 87% has been set for 2010/11, based on a trajectory towards 90% punctuality by 2012/13, and reflecting the importance of bus punctuality in providing an attractive service for existing and potential customers. Measures to achieve this target will be agreed between the County Council and main bus operators within the County through the bus punctuality performance partnership. The non-linear trajectory shows steady progress in improving bus punctuality in the early years of the plan (with a 1% year on year improvement), increasing to a 2% year on year improvement for later years. This reflects the benefits of traffic management and improved signal systems which will be seen towards the end of the plan period. |
|
Key actions of local government and partners required to achieve the targets
Local Government
- Within the network management duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004, to ensure that the day to day management of local highway network allows for the expeditious movement of all highway users, including buses; and
- Continuation of dialogue and exchange of information and views between local bus users, local authority officers and bus operators through area based bus forums to ensure that local needs are reflected in bus service provision.
Local Partners
- Commitment of the main bus operators within the County to drive up standards on commercial services, including promotion and marketing; and
- Willingness by operators to enter into a bus punctuality performance partnership.
Principal risks to the achievement of the target, and how these will be managed
- Changes to the way commercial services in the County are operated which have the effect of making bus services less attractive to users or potential users e.g. service withdrawals, high fare increases, unreliability and punctuality related to maintenance and staffing levels. By working closely with the main operators in the County (including through a Bus Punctuality Partnership) we will seek to reconcile commercial interests of bus operators with user needs and expectations;
- Risks associated with traffic and highway conditions, causing difficulties with bus operations and reducing the quality of the bus services on offer. This risk will be managed through the authority’s network management duty to minimise disruption on the highway and improve traffic flows. Where works on the highway are planned we will work with operators to ensure that bus users are well informed of any alterations; and
- Lack of willingness by major operators to work in partnership with the authority on joint initiatives.
Rail Patronage (local target)
Links to Wider Objectives
Rail patronage targets represent a proxy towards the key outcome targets of congestion and accessibility. Meeting targets in these areas will therefore contribute towards the LTP wider objectives of:
- A fairer, more inclusive and accessible transport system;
- A full employment and a strong, sustainable economy; and
- A reduction of transport impact on the environment.
Monitoring Methodology and Target Setting
|
Indicator: |
Level of patronage on rail services to, from and within Warwickshire |
|
Target |
To increase patronage on rail services to, from and within Warwickshire to 4.76m by 2010/11 |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (local) |
|
Baseline: |
2001/02: 3.81m |
|
Horizon: |
2010/11: 4.76m |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator uses patronage data collected from rail operators. Reporting for this indicator is annually. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The 2000 LTP set a target ‘To increase the number of journeys by rail to, from and within Warwickshire by 15% by 2006 and 25% by 2011’. Good progress has been made towards this target and we are currently on track to meet the 2006 target. With the planned expenditure on rail through the life of the second LTP it is considered that the County Council will have sufficient influence over rail patronage to keep this target and maintain target levels. |
|
|
Indicator: |
Level of patronage on rail services from Warwickshire to the West Midlands conurbation |
|
Target |
To increase patronage on rail services from Warwickshire to the West Midlands to 1.23m by 2010/11 |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (local) |
|
Baseline: |
2001/02: 0.98m |
|
Horizon: |
2010/11: 1.23m |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator uses patronage data collected from rail operators. Reporting for this indicator is annually. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The 2000 LTP set a target ‘To increase the number of journeys by rail from Warwickshire to the West Midlands conurbation by 20% by 2006 and by 35% by 2011’. Good progress has been made towards this target and we are currently on track to meet the 2006 target. With the planned expenditure on rail through the life of the second LTP it is considered that the County Council will have sufficient influence over rail patronage to keep this target and maintain target levels. |
|
Key actions of local government and partners required to achieve the targets
Local Government
- Opening of Coleshill Parkway; and
- Investment in the Warwickshire Quality Rail Partnership as part of the Passenger Rail Strategy.
Local Partners
- Joint investment and promotion of schemes e.g. Coleshill Parkway.
Principal risks to the achievement of the target, and how these will be managed
- Lack of willingness by the rail industry to work in partnership with the authority on joint initiatives. The establishment pf the Warwickshire Quality Rail Partnership in 2006 will ensure close links with the rail industry and allow a better understanding of areas of common interest.
Change in Area Wide Road Traffic Mileage (LTP2) & Change in Journey Speeds (local)
Links to Wider Objectives
Change in area wide road traffic mileage (LTP2) and change in journey speeds represent a proxy towards the key outcome targets of congestion and air quality. Attaining targets in this area will therefore contribute towards the LTP wider objectives of:
- A reduction of transport impact on the environment;
- A full employment and a strong, sustainable economy; and
- A fairer, more inclusive and accessible transport system.
Monitoring Methodology and Target Setting
|
Indicator: |
Change in area wide road traffic mileage (LTP2) |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome |
|
Baseline: |
2004 (calendar year): 100 |
|
Horizon: |
2010 (calendar year): 109 (represents 1.5% annual growth between base and target year) |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator monitors the change in area wide vehicle kilometres on local authority managed roads. The indicator will be monitored using data from the National Road Traffic Survey. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
Traffic growth in Warwickshire, expressed as the number of vehicle kilometres (based on National Road Traffic Estimates), has been increasing steadily at approximately 2% per annum (1993-2003 inclusive). This level of growth is thought to be lower than would have occurred without the sustained level of investment in local transport over recent years. Levels of investment over the LTP period will not be sufficient to halt the growth in area wide vehicle kilometres. The planned level of investment in transport schemes and initiatives, combined with population and economic growth, are expected to increase the growth in traffic by approximately 1.5% per annum. The target for 2011 is therefore a 9% increase in area wide vehicle kilometres compared to 2004 levels. To set a more stretching target would require a significant reduction in traffic growth on the Strategic Highway Network. This is difficult to influence in a Warwickshire context due to the number of motorways and trunk roads intersecting the County and the long distance nature of many of the journeys. NB. Where detrunking takes place over the reporting period, suitable adjustments will need to be made to reported data and to the targets. |
|
|
Indicator: |
Journey speeds on main urban highway networks |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (local) |
|
Target: |
To avoid congestion causing a deterioration of journey speeds (peak periods) on the local highway network by more than 10% in Warwick / Leamington and Stratford and 5% in Nuneaton, Bedworth, Rugby and Kenilworth |
|
Target dates: |
Baseline: 2005/6 Horizon: 2010/11 |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This local indicator measures journey times (peak periods) on the main urban highway networks as a proxy for local congestion. Monitoring against this indicator will use annual journey runs carried out in each of the main towns. However, other sources of data such as in vehicle tracking devices are becoming available which may provide a more statistically significant measure of journey speeds. The availability of data will be kept under review and when such data is reliable and available at a reasonable cost it may be adopted. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The target included in the 2000 LTP for congestion was “To avoid congestion increasing journey times on the local highway network by more than half between 1999 and 2011”. Monitoring over the first LTP period has shown that, on average across the County, there has been a slow deterioration in journey speeds. If the trend since 1999 continues it appears that the above target as an average across the County will be easily met. The Government’s 10-year plan for Transport contains a national target to reduce congestion to 2000 levels by 2010. It is unlikely that it will be possible to achieve this target in Warwickshire with the levels of investment likely to be available for schemes that will reduce congestion. However, given the relatively modest levels of congestion experienced in Warwickshire it is considered acceptable that this Government target is not adopted for Warwickshire. With the evidence available it is not possible to make accurate predictions regarding future journey speeds. However, evidence from urban traffic models suggest that with the interventions planned through integrated transport projects, peak hour journey speeds will continue to deteriorate. The level of deterioration is predicted to vary in different towns. Two different targets have therefore been set; that journey speeds should not deteriorate over the Plan Period by more than 10% in Warwick / Leamington and Stratford and 5% in Nuneaton, Bedworth, Rugby and Kenilworth. When considered against the observed change to date this represents a stretched target compared to that set in the first LTP. There is no existing data on the scale of congestion caused by road works, moving traffic offences and other events affecting the highway network. It is not possible therefore to set outcome targets for reducing congestion resulting from road works and other incidents. However, the Traffic Manager will develop output targets for incorporation in the Network Management Duty Strategy. |
|
Key actions of local government and partners required to achieve these targets
Local Government
- Improve the management and operation of temporary works in the highway to reduce the duration and extent of disruption caused;
- Implement park and ride facilities for Warwick and Leamington Spa;
- Implement a step changes in public transport provision in the north south corridor through public transport major schemes in Warwick/Leamington Spa and in the Nuneaton - Coventry - Leamington Spa corridor;
- Introduce intelligent transport systems in Warwick, Leamington Spa, Rugby and Nuneaton;
- Maintain a substantial safer routes to school programme including school travel plans. A specific initiative to achieve a reduction in congestion is the trialling of schools drop and ride for schools in Warwick;
- Implement a programme of minor junction improvements at congestion hotspots. A list of schemes will be established through public consultation and interrogation of the urban traffic models; and
- Construct Rugby Western Relief Road.
Local Partners
- Capacity improvements on local and strategic public transport networks, including improvements at the trunk road junctions at Tollbar End (A45/A46) and Longbridge (M40 J15); and
- With many of the vehicle movements originating from outside Warwickshire, cross-boundary working with adjacent local authorities is needed to promote changes in travel habits.
Principal risks to the achievement of the target, and how these will be managed
- Risks associated with external macro-economic influences such as sharp increases in economic growth or a drop in oil prices which could result in increased levels of traffic growth;
- Risks associated with large new developments which draw movement between areas and change travel patterns. This will be managed through our involvement in the planning process, advising local planning authorities on the likely traffic impacts of proposed developments; and
- Risks associated with the capacity on the public transport network. If capacity is insufficient to cater for demand, this could result in additional vehicle kilometres being made on local authority managed roads. To manage this risk we will work with public transport providers to identify where capacity improvements may be required.
Changes in Peak Period Traffic Flows to Urban Centres (Nuneaton Urban Area) (LTP6)
Indicator LTP6 monitors the change in the number of vehicles travelling towards the centres of urban areas with total populations of more than 100,000. For urban areas which have a total population of more than 100,000, but living in sub-areas each less than 100,000, the indicator is not mandatory if it can be demonstrated that the indicator is not relevant. Within Warwickshire the ‘Nuneaton Urban Area‘ falls within this category. The urban area comprises the population of Nuneaton at 70,721 people and Hinckley (in Leicestershire) at 43,246 (based on 2001 Census data).
This indicator is not deemed to be relevant for a number of reasons:
- The categorisation of the two populations as one ‘urban area’ is on the basis of the two urban areas being in close proximity to each other. This proximity does not translate to a close interdependence between the two areas, or with Nuneaton (as the larger town) acting as the main centre for the ‘urban area’;
- Whilst there are travel movements between the two areas (as measured from Travel to Work data), these are not significant when compared to total travel movements into and out of Nuneaton. For example, Travel to Work data shows 2,018 movements from Hinckley and Bosworth to Nuneaton and Bedworth and 2,923 movements in the opposite direction. Of more significance are movements from Nuneaton and Bedworth to Coventry, recorded at 12,148, and from Coventry to Nuneaton and Bedworth, recorded as 4,213; and
- For consistency of monitoring arrangements it is more appropriate to continue with existing arrangements for monitoring traffic flows rather than adopting new procedures to comply with the methodology outlined in the ‘Technical Guidance on Monitoring the LTP2 Mandatory Indicators – December 2004’ for indicator LTP6. Adopting new procedures to conform with LTP6 reporting requirements would mean that data for Nuneaton could not be directly compared with data for other towns in the County, or with historic data for the town.
As an alternative to adopting indicator LTP6 we are therefore proposing to continue with our current arrangements for monitoring traffic flows for the main towns in Warwickshire (including Nuneaton). This is reflected in the traffic flows indicator listed in the indicators table at the end of this section.
Mode Share of Journeys to School
Links to Wider Objectives
Mode share, including mode share of journeys to school, represents a proxy towards the key outcome target of congestion and air quality. Attaining targets in this area will therefore contribute towards the LTP wider objectives of:
- A full employment and a strong, sustainable economy; and
- A reduction of transport impact on the environment.
Monitoring Methodology and Target Setting
|
Indicator: |
Mode share of journeys to school |
|
Target: |
To maintain the proportion of car (sole passenger) journeys to school at 2005/06 levels |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (local) |
|
Baseline: |
2005/06: 15% |
|
Horizon: |
2010/11: 15% |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator monitors the usual mode of travel to school and is measured on an annual basis using a hands-up survey of local schools. As required by the DfT guidance, the indicator will report separately for children aged 5 to 10 and children aged 11 to 16. NB. The monitoring methodology may change in future years if data can be collected via the DfES school census, the DfT’s preferred data collection mechanism. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
Nationally, the proportion of primary aged children who walk to school has declined from 67% to 55% over the last decade, with a corresponding rise in car travel. Similarly, the proportion of secondary pupils walking has declined from 52% to 43%, and the proportion cycling from 6% to 2%. This situation has evolved due to a wide range of complex issues, including parental concerns over child safety/security during the journey to school, rising car ownership, and an increase in the number of mothers working full or part time. In Warwickshire, the trend is similar to that observed nationally. An annual countywide School Travel Survey has shown a steady increase in car use for school journeys of 1% per year until 2002 to a peak of 40%. In 2003 this figure was reduced to 39%, which may be an indication that measures that have been implemented during the first Local Transport Plan period are starting to influence travel choices. However, it is clearly too early to know whether this is the start of a positive downward trend. In the 2000 LTP a target was set to “reduce the proportion of school journeys undertaken by car to 33% by 2006 and 24% by 2011”. In light of the annual survey described above, it is clear that this target will not be met; indeed the overall trend in car use (1% growth per annum) shows that it was unrealistic. An analysis of local survey data has shown that those schools where Safer Routes to School schemes have been implemented during the past five years an overall reduction of 4% in car usage has been achieved. In contrast, schools where no investment has taken place have seen an increase in car journeys to school by 4%. The countywide target has been amended to reflect these trends. The target has also been amended to reflect the results of the latest school travel survey which, in accordance with DfT guidelines, now includes car sharing as a mode of travel to school. Journeys undertaken by car sharing have therefore been excluded from the target figure. The target now refers to maintaining the proportion of school journeys undertaken by car (sole passenger) at 2005/06 levels; this is considered stretching given that, with no investment, sole passenger car use for journeys to school could be expected to rise to between 20-25% of trips. No specific targets have been set for the proportion of children walking, cycling, car sharing or travelling by public transport to school as the primary objective of the target is to reduce the proportion of trips to school by car. However these ‘other modes’ are included as indicators and will be monitored on an annual basis using the school travel survey. |
|
Key actions of local government and partners required to achieve the target
Local Government
- Continuation of implementation of Safer Routes to School programme;
- Continued promotion of School Travel Plans;
- TravelWise initiatives;
- Walking and cycling measures; and
- Commitment from the Local Education Authority.
Local Partners
Key actions of local partners include:
- Commitment from schools to participate in schemes and initiatives, along with an ongoing commitment to monitoring of school travel through the annual hands up survey; and
- Commitment from parents to consider alternative ways for their children to travel to school.
Principal risks to the achievement of the target, and how these will be managed
- Monitoring of school travel relies on the goodwill of schools to participate in the annual school travel survey. There is a risk that, due to a high number of pressures on schools, they choose not to participate in the survey. This risk is being managed by further developing links with schools and identifying ways that sustainable travel can be incorporated into the school curriculum. The role of School Travel Plan advisors will be particularly important in managing this risk; and
- There is a risk that the commitment and momentum enjoyed when schemes or initiatives are first implemented will not be sustained, particularly with the inevitable turnover of staff and pupils involved. Ongoing support and encouragement for schools in considering their travel behaviour will therefore be required, e.g. through initiatives such as Walk to School week.
Proportion of the Workforce as a Whole covered by Travel Plans
Links to Wider Objectives
Mode share, including mode share of journeys to work, represents a proxy towards the key outcome target of congestion. Attaining targets in this area will therefore contribute towards the LTP wider objectives of:
- A full employment and a strong, sustainable economy; and
- A reduction of transport impact on the environment.
Monitoring Methodology and Target Setting
|
Indicator: |
Proportion of the workforce as a whole covered by travel plans |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (local) |
|
Baseline: |
2005/06: 8.6% |
|
Horizon: |
2010/11: 14.0% |
|
Monitoring methodology |
|
|
This indicator monitors the number of people who work for companies who have introduced a travel plan as a proportion of the total workforce. Monitoring is on an annual basis through internal records. |
|
|
Target setting |
|
|
The target is to increase the proportion of the workforce as a whole covered by travel plans by 5% between 2005/06 to 2010/11. The target level reflects the level of improvement in coverage of travel plans over the first LTP period and the anticipated level of resources for this activity in the life of the second Local Transport Plan. |
|
Key actions of local government and partners required to achieve the target
Local Government
- Continued commitment by the County Council and the District/Borough Councils to secure travel plans through the planning process which include targets to reduce car usage; and
- Continued commitment by the County Council to promote travel plans and work with employers to develop initiatives which promote travel by sustainable modes.
Local Partners
Key actions of local partners include:
- Commitment from employers to promote alternative modes of travel to their staff.
Principal risks to the achievement of the target, and how these will be managed
The principal risk for this target is that it requires a commitment from companies to adopt a Travel Plan. Resources will be targeted at securing travel plan agreements through the planning process.
Cycling Trips (annualised index) (LTP3)
Links to Wider Objectives
The number of cycling trips represents a proxy towards the key outcome targets of congestion, air quality and accessibility. Attaining targets in these areas will therefore contribute towards the LTP wider objectives of:
- A full employment and a strong, sustainable economy;
- A reduction of transport impact on the environment; and
- A Fairer, More Inclusive and Accessible Transport System.
Monitoring Methodology and Target Setting
|
Indicator: |
Annualised Index of Cycling Trips (LTP3) |
|
Target type: |
Intermediate outcome (mandatory) |
|
Baseline: |
2004: 100 (indexed) |
|
Horizon: |
2010: 100 |