Docstoc

bucks

Document Sample
bucks Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                     Nigel Welbourn
Chris Williams                                                    Acting Director for Thames Valley
Chief Executive
Buckinghamshire County Council                                                         Bridge House
County Hall                                                                      1 Walnut Tree Close
Walton Street                                                                               Guildford
                                                                                           GU1 4GA
Aylesbury
HP20 1UA                                                                  Switchboard: 01483 882255
                                                                           Direct Tel: 01483 882 402
                                                                                 Fax: 01483 882 626
                                                                                    GTN: 3011 2402

                                                               e-mail: Nigel.welbourn@gose.gsi.gov.uk

                                                                                  18 December 2006

Dear Chris

LOCAL TRANSPORT CAPITAL SETTLEMENT 2007/08

This letter summarises the 2007/08 local transport capital settlement for your
local transport plan area. It sets out the related transport capital allocations for
2007/08 and beyond - including for maintenance and the integrated transport
(small schemes) block.

THE NATIONAL PICTURE

This is the first settlement since local authorities reviewed the delivery of their
first five year plans and produced the final versions of the 82 second five year
local transport plans, which cover England outside London.

Delivery of the Previous Plans

The delivery reports covering the achievements of the first local transport
plans highlight a substantial and sustained volume of work across the country
to improve transport services by tackling local priorities. The work has also
contributed to addressing some key priorities shared by central and local
government. There has been sustained progress, for example, in reducing
local road casualties and the condition of many local road networks is
improving. Authorities have made substantial investments to manage traffic
more effectively and reduce its adverse impacts on residents, town centres
and the environment more generally. In many areas, better infrastructure for
buses, cyclists and pedestrians has been put in place and transport is making
a contribution to more sustainable development and economic growth.



 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
Some highlights are included in a report 'Delivering Better Local Transport:
Key Achievements and Good Practice from the First Round of Local Transport
Plans', produced for the Department for Transport. This can be viewed at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/divisionhomep
age/032393.hcsp

I encourage you to continue to work together with other authorities in your
region and beyond to share good practice, learn from each other and build
your capacity to deliver. My office is also keen to provide help to support
continuing to improve the delivery of your plans and will be in touch to arrange
a meeting to take this forward early in the New Year.

Seventeen authorities were identified as transport centres of excellence in
2005. Many of these have demonstrated excellent delivery across the whole
plan period in this year's reporting. Eight other authorities have also
demonstrated excellent delivery and are being invited to join the transport
centres of excellence programme to build on their good practice.

Second Local Transport Plans

All this creates a solid foundation for further improvements during the second
plan period. The new plans provide evidence of much good local transport
planning which, supported by the funding being allocated and the experience
and skills which authorities have accumulated, enhance the prospects for
delivering further improvement over the next four years.

A common theme of the new plans is that partnership and behavioural change
are needed to achieve many local transport plan objectives. It is therefore
vital that local communities and stakeholders continue to be engaged strongly
in the delivery of the second local transport plans. The local transport plan
system has now been in place for seven years and the Government is
substantially reducing the level of reporting in line with the principles of the
recent Local Government White Paper. The challenge now is to deliver
improvements that address the transport plan priorities and represent good
value for the resources you have to invest.

To this end, £1,254m (£35m more than last year) is being allocated to local
authorities for 2007/08 to deliver integrated transport improvements and
invest in highways capital maintenance according to their local policies and
priorities.

Integrated transport allocations, (which are indicative because they are
subject to the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review) are also
being made for the period 2008/09 to 2010/11. They provide increased
certainty and stability for local authorities to plan ahead. These indicative
allocations total £1,769m over three years and involve year on year increases
nationally.

This announcement builds on the funding allocated last year. Parts of the
allocations for 2007/08 have already been included in the revenue support
 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
grant settlement as supported capital expenditure (resource) - SCE (R). The
rest of the funding will be provided through specific grants under section 31 of
the Local Government Finance Act 2003 and form part of the single pot.

Announcements about major schemes are not being made today and this
settlement does not include the funding support for them. In July the
Secretary of State responded to advice from regions about their priorities for
major transport projects - including those promoted by local authorities - up to
2015/16. The indicative budgets sustain the record level of investment being
made over the ten year period.

THE LOCAL POSITION

Second Local Transport Plan

Each of the final second local transport plans has been classified as excellent,
good, fair or weak. Your final local transport plan has been assessed as
being excellent.

The excellent classification means that a very high standard of transport
planning has been evidenced.

Annex 1 contains details about the assessment made of your plan and further
information about the assessment process is being published on the
Department for Transport website (link as above).

Delivery of the First Local Transport Plan

Each of the delivery reports about first local transport plans has been
classified as being excellent, very good, good or satisfactory. In your case,
delivery was assessed as being excellent.

Excellent delivery means you demonstrated either strong delivery across most
or all strategy areas, or achieved a very high core indicator score married to a
high standard of overall delivery. Your actions resulted in a very positive
impact both on local transport provision and on wider areas of policy.

Your performance over the first Local Transport Plan period has been
excellent. You have reported significant reductions in total road casualties,
and in the case of child road casualties you have already met your 2010
target. You have also performed strongly on school travel, substantially
reducing the number of school run journeys made by car. Road maintenance
and bridge strengthening are further success stories, where targets have
been met, especially with regard to non-principal roads, and public
satisfaction levels are above the national average. Good progress has also
made on public transport especially with the nine Quality Bus Partnerships
implemented over the first Local Transport Plan period.

Where there are areas for improvement, the Department will offer you support
and advice.
 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
Details about the assessments are being published on the Department for
Transport website (link as above).

Integrated Transport Block Allocations

The funding allocations for the integrated transport block for your plan area
are as follows:

Buckinghamshire 2007/08 £m                           2008/09 £m   2009/10 £m 2010/11 £m
Allocation      5.543m                               5.536        5.612      5.674

Your 2007/08 allocation is the previously published planning guideline with an
uplift of 12.5% because of your excellent local transport plan and with an uplift
of 12.5% because of the excellent delivery of your first local transport plan.

There have also been other changes made to the published planning
guidelines for 2008/09 to 2010/11. Details are being published on the
Department for Transport website (link as above).

For 2007/08 an SCE (R) covering part of your allocation (75% of the planning
guideline published last year for 2007/08 – in your case £3.326m) has already
been included in the revenue support grant settlement announced last year.
The difference will be paid as direct grant within the single pot.

Maintenance

The total capital highway maintenance funding allocation for Buckinghamshire
for 2007/08 is £ 5.855m, all of which is formula funding.

 An SCE (R) covering part of your allocation (75% of the formula element of
last year's allocation – in your case £4.780m has already been included in the
revenue support grant settlement announced last year. The remainder will be
paid as direct grant within the single pot.

Maintenance Arrangements for 2008/09 and Beyond

Following the spending review, the Department proposes to make a three
year settlement for maintenance for the remainder of the second local
transport plan period.

The Department proposes to review the arrangements for funding PRN bridge
strengthening and major maintenance, together with those for exceptional
maintenance schemes in future years, and to consider refreshing the
maintenance formula. For this purpose the Department would like to set up a
group on which we would welcome participation from local authority
representatives. The Department expects that the group would meet on a
couple of occasions in early 2007, with the aim of announcing any changes in
the spring. If any of your highway maintenance colleagues would be
interested in joining the group I shall be grateful if they would advise my
 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
colleague Anthony Griffiths anthony.griffiths@gose.gsi.gov.uk by 10
January 2007.

THE REGIONAL PICTURE

In total, £200.812m will be invested in the South East. I have included a Press
Notice with this letter, which provides further detail.

CONCLUSION

I would like to thank you for all the hard work that your officers have
undertaken in producing your second Local Transport Plan and first Delivery
Report. I know that all my colleagues appreciate the co-operation you have
given them throughout the year and we will continue to work with you as you
put your second Local Transport Plan into action.

Please contact Jane Vaughan at jane.vaughan@gose.gsi.gov.uk if you
have any queries about this letter. We hope to be able to meet with your
authority early in the new year to provide more detailed feedback.

This letter is also being published on the Department for Transport website.




Nigel Welbourn
Acting Director for Thames Valley




Annex 1

 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
      Form LTP2 : Assessment of Final Second Local
      Transport Plan

      To be completed by Government Offices (reflecting DfT C and
      Defra input) for issue to the responsible Local Transport
      Authority/ies

      PART ONE: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

      Plan Area:
                                 BUCKINGHAMSHIRE


Plan                             Provisional Plan 2005                Final Plan 2006
Assessment                       N = Needs substantial                W = Weak
                                 improvement.                         F = Fair
                                 P = Promising.                       G =Good
                                 VP = Very Promising                  E = Excellent
                                 N        P         VP                W        F      G   E

1 Overall Assessment                                            VP                        E
of Context
        1a                                      P                                         E

       1b                                                       VP                        E

       1c                                       P                                         E

       1d                                                       VP                        E

       1e                                                       VP                        E

2.Overall Assessment                                            VP                        E
for Analysis
            2a                                                  VP                        E

            2b                                                  VP                        E

            2c                                                  VP                        E

            2d                                  P                                    G

            2e                                                  VP                        E

            2f                                  P                                         E


        Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
3- Overall Assessment                                            VP                     E
for Maximising value
of Resources
           3a                                                    VP                     E

          3b                                                     VP                     E

          3c                                                     VP                     E

          3d                                                     VP                     E

          3e                                     P                     N/A

          3f                                     P                                  G

          3g                                     Pass                        Pass

          3h                                                     VP                         E

4 Overall Assessment                             P                                          E
for Involvement.
          4a                                     P                                          E

          4b                                     P                                          E

          4c                                                     VP                         E

          4d                                     P                                  G

          4e                                     P                                          E

5. Performance                    Not Comparable                                            E
Management
& Local Priorities.
6. Accessibility                                     N/ A                           G

7. Congestion                                         N/A                           G

8. Air Quality Issues                                 N/A                           G

9. Road Safety                                        N/A                                   E

                                                                 VP                         E
Overall Classification




         Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
PART TWO: ASSESSMENT EVIDENCE

Criterion One: Context
The consistency of a plan's: objectives; targets; and programmes with
wider policy and planning.

Evidence for assessment of Criterion One

Assessment = Excellent

Since the provisional LTP the plan has been strengthened by information on
how the vision in the plan, which we noted at draft was speculative but
realistic, has been shaped by national, regional and local influences. The links
from the vision, to overall themes, objectives and targets are well made. The
Accessibility section is thorough and outlines the action proposed to deliver
the vision and objectives. The delivery programme remains traceable back to
the corporate themes. We noted at draft stage that the LTP might benefit from
exploring the possibilities afforded by the new funding formula. However there
is no mention of what extra resources might be used for.

In terms of consistency with decisions of other plans for Buckinghamshire we
noted at draft stage a largely consistent approach with the plans of district
authorities, and a partnership approach within the council and externally, for
example with the LSP and the Economic Partnership. The plan has been
strengthened in relation to education with additional information included in
the Accessibility section, (an Access to Learning Action Plan), and in the
appendices to cement the links between education and transport.

As noted at draft stage the LTP shows a high level of consistency with
regional and national level policies. There is clear consistency with the SE
Plan and its sub regional priorities, with the RES and RTS. There is a good
graphical illustration of the links between national, regional policy, the
Community Strategy, the Corporate Plan, cross cutting themes and the 20
year vision. Targets are consistent with the vision, the objectives and overall
cross cutting themes.




 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
Criterion Two: Analysis
The plan is built on a sound analysis of local transport problems and
opportunities

Evidence for assessment of Criterion Two

Assessment = Excellent


As at draft stage the individual chapters contain comprehensive quantified
analysis showing consideration of various options and prioritisation between
these options. Emerging problems are also analysed, for example in the
congestion chapter where the increase in traffic in Aylesbury and mitigation
measures are considered. There is plenty of evidence throughout the LTP that
opportunities for an enhanced quality of life are sought out as a matter of
importance, as is customer satisfaction.

As with the Provisional LTP (PLTP) the plan has good examples of lessons
learned from LTP1. The area action plans have been informed by public/
community feedback.

The plan clearly quantifies the major scheme and significant block elements.
This is reflected in the scheme assessment matrix approach and the links
between the programme, objectives and strategy. Also as noted at PLTP each
section has analysis of the current situation with appropriate evidence. The
congestion chapter has plenty of analysis of measures proposed relating to
demand management.

As at draft there is a good spread of analysis across all modes. We
commented at draft stage that the final version should contain greater
analysis of both cycling and freight issues. The cycling strategy is soundly
focused for the three urban areas, but there is more limited mention made for
the rest of the county, although the topography of the county makes this to an
extent understandable. The Accessibility chapter does state that the full
potential of cycling and walking in providing links from villages to key
destinations has not been fully exploited. The freight strategy remains under
development with completion expected in 2009. Whilst there are various
references to freight the LTP would probably have benefited from the freight
strategy being more fully developed at plan commencement, rather than
waiting until 2009.

As noted at PLTP the accessibility strategy has a sound analytical base and
the air quality targets reflect air quality emission modelling and local traffic
forecasting.

The SEA process has now been completed for the plan with the inclusion of
the Environmental Statement. The environmental impact of the transport
proposals in the LTP as a whole has been considered and there is
identification of alternatives/ mitigating measures that will reduce or eliminate
 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
negative environmental effects. The appropriate consultation and inputs have
been undertaken, analysed and taken forward. The completion of this work
represents an improvement from the draft plan.



Criterion Three – Maximising Value from Resources:
The plan will deliver the best possible results, given the likely
availability of public funds and the current state of infrastructure and
transport services.

Evidence for assessment of Criterion Three

Assessment = Excellent

The parts of the plan concerned with maximising value from resources have
remained largely unchanged since the draft LTP.

The Delivery section demonstrates how each scheme is assessed for value
for money through the scheme assessment matrix process. The plan makes
clear that new infrastructure is to be used only when necessary and as part of
a balanced approach to make the best use of what exists. There is plenty of
evidence in the congestion chapter to support the conclusion that the local
authority is maximising usage of what already exists. New infrastructure such
as the Aylesbury public transport hub will be supported by complementary
measures.

Looking at the cost effective maintenance of assets and how asset
maintenance will be informed by LTP objectives and targets, the Traffic Asset
Management Plan includes details of the Six Sigma business approach, a key
prioritisation mechanism for maintenance as well as other areas. The
importance of asset related work adding value to other LTP objectives is
noted in the Transport Asset chapter.

The sections on congestion outline a wide range of possible pricing and
prioritisation methods with an emphasis on making the best use of existing
infrastructure. This was noted at draft stage.

Looking at the use of revenue, we noted at draft stage that the delivery
programme outlines its indicative use for 2006/07 broken down by objective
and scheme. There were examples of where relevant revenue budgets and
rural bus grants could be delegated to rural transport partnerships to deliver
public transport. We noted that the specific use of revenue for other services
was not prominent. In the final plan the Area Action Plans (which cover the
urban areas) provide some evidence of the integration of capital and revenue
funded measures. It remains the case that the specific use of revenue for a
range of services is not as prominent as it could be in the LTP.

Turning to the effectiveness of cost control and securing partnership funding
from non LTP sources, we noted at draft that there are mechanisms in the
 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
plan to reappraise prioritisation of block schemes should that be necessary.
Bus operators are investing in new vehicles and GPS equipment. The bus
strategy identifies 12 Community Transport Partnership Areas with each
partnership being able to decide on the most appropriate pattern of public
transport provision for the area, within available resources. Lastly, the A418
major scheme allows 5 years between the submission of the case and the
start of construction, allowing time for statutory and other procedures to be
undertaken.



Criterion Four: Involvement
The effectiveness of the consultation and involvement with stakeholders
in local transport.

Evidence for assessment of Criterion Four

Assessment = Excellent

The sections on involvement and consultation in the final plan have shown a
clear improvement since the Provisional LTP.

We noted at draft stage when looking at the degree of participation
demonstrated in the plan that a supporting statement from South Bucks was
absent from the plan. This is now included as is a cross boundary strategy
with Oxfordshire which also was not in the draft version. This strategy
includes some evidence of joint working on parking and demand
management, joint work on fulfilling Traffic Management Act requirements and
on addressing congestion on cross boundary routes. It also considers joint
development of UTMC projects, liaison on cycling and walking and joint
working on the 280 bus service.

We noted at draft stage that both cross boundary strategies and major
scheme development showed clear links with authorities to the east and
south, but that there was little mention of links with Oxfordshire. A cross
boundary strategy with Oxfordshire is now included and contains evidence of
working on parking and demand management. In addition there are
references, for example, in the Southern Counties Cross Boundary Strategy
to joint work on decriminalised parking enforcement and a cross boundary
working group of passenger transport officers to review inter urban bus/ coach
services.

The PLTP showed that the Buckinghamshire Strategic and Economic
Partnerships were key consultees and providers of driving influences for the
plan. There were promising Quality Bus Partnerships as well as proposals in
the plan to work with employment bodies, PCTs, learning partnerships and
the Business Link. In addition joint working with Arriva and Chiltern Railways
has improved access to stations. The plan has details of active involvement

 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
with the TVSRP, work with the Rural Transport Partnership to improve
accessibility and reduce social exclusion in rural areas and other examples of
partnership working.

We noted at draft stage that there was limited evidence of freight consultation.
This has now been addressed with consideration of the possibilities for rail
freight with East West Rail and on the GWML. There is mention of other
freight possibilities. The references taken together are sufficient to provide
evidence of engagement with freight operators. However we were looking for
evidence that this had made a difference to the plan and until the Freight
Strategy is completed in 2009 it will be difficult to gauge this in full.

Lastly, the LTP has a number of additional references to partnership working.
There is also evidence of a more customer focused approach to areas like
maintenance and there are mechanisms in place to ensure a continuing
dialogue between the local authority, stakeholders and the community such
as the Highways on Call facility. This is an improvement from the provisional
LTP.


Criterion Five - Performance Management and Local
Priorities

Evidence for assessment of Criterion Five

Assessment = Excellent

The Authority have five stretched targets, with provision in place for
measurement and monitoring. The targets are:

BVPI 224b - Unclassified road condition
BVPI 187 - Footway condition
BVPI102 - Bus Patronage
BVPI99Z - Slights
BVPI 99x - All Killed and seriously injured

The TRANstat and Six Sigma systems ensure regular review and monitoring
of targets which has seen the number of local targets achieved increase by
over 50% since 2001/02 to date. The Authority has demonstrated how they
will cope in the event of staff shortages and have streamlined their indicators
to reflect the local community priorities. The plan demonstrates effective and
widespread consultation, involvement and a customer focused approach.

Historically Buckinghamshire have a good track record where KSI targets are
concerned, however they plan to continue to put measures in place to secure
a further reduction which is equal to a stretching target. They have provided
evidence that they plan to work closely with the Highways Agency in order to
reduce casualties on their roads in order to meet government targets.

 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
For BVPI 223, Principal Classified Road Condition, the Authority will be using
the Scanner method to monitor the road condition for the first time. The aim is
to achieve and remain in the median quartile level of performance. The LTP
demonstrates how risk management will be monitored.

Bucks have created a comprehensive draft "Scheme Assessment Matrix" in
order to monitor their Strategies, value for money, targets and deliverability.
The scheme assessment matrix will be used to measure the benefits of all
schemes and will act as a guide for future decisions.



Criterion Six - Accessibility

Evidence for assessment of Criterion Six

Assessment = Good.

The accessibility sections of the plan have been assessed as good.

There were a number of reasons why these sections of the plan have not
been classed as excellent:

- there was no clear prioritisation of actions arising from the evidence base, ie
the prioritisation did not flow clearly from what was a very good evidence
base. There were also some contradictions (access to Aylesbury and High
Wycombe town centres by public transport for employment reasons was
included on page 46 as a priority, but on page 27, the plan mentions that
"there is little evidence at a strategic level that accessibility presents a
significant barrier to employment in Buckinghamshire");

- partnerships were not as well developed as they could have been (especially
for health and employment), and the supporting statements don't clearly
indicate support on the delivery of the accessibility strategy. For example
page 67 begins "In the healthcare sector, our strategic partners will need to
include ...", indicating that whilst work is ongoing to get them on board,
progress still has to be made;

- many of the action plans were quite general, and it was not clear that they
were targeted to deal with the priorities arising from the evidence base. In
addition, all of the proposed actions are transport focussed, with little
evidence that partners in the health, education, work or food sectors will be
involved in delivery.




Criterion Seven – Congestion
 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
Evidence for assessment of Criterion Seven

Assessment = Good

The congestion targets that are set out in the LTP all meet the minimum
standard required with the exception of LTP6 Peak Travel and LTP5 Bus
Punctuality. In the case of LTP6, although the traffic flow projection increases
over time, we have accepted the explanation provided. With LTP5 Bus
Punctuality, although the target has not been set at the required level, after
consideration this is considered acceptable as it is recognised that the 90%
target is unrealistic for some local authorities.

The targets set are consistent with the objectives of the public transport and
congestion strategies as set out in the plan. In the case of BV104, the bus
satisfaction target, there is a comprehensive bus strategy that demonstrates
how the target set will be achieved. There is clear evidence of a high level of
investment in bus services and that this will continue with a lot of funding
coming from funds generated by the council’s own revenue. The bus strategy
also demonstrates how the accessibility needs of the community will be
addressed. The BV102 Bus Patronage target meets the stretch target
requirements.

The bus strategy sets out the regularity of bus services and how the council
plan to advertise the services effectively. Bus operators are required to
provide provisions such as telephone information services and the council will
ensure real time information is provided.

The plan shows evidence that the network management duties of the local
authority are being performed to a good standard.

There is evidence in the Vision and Congestion chapters that congestion is
given due weight in development control, strategic planning and economic
development activities.

The plan also contains evidence that the contributions of demand
management, traffic management, public transport, walking, cycling and travel
plans to addressing congestion have been considered and have informed the
LTP strategy.




Criterion Eight – Air Quality
 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
Evidence for assessment of Criterion Eight

Assessment = Good

There are three districts within the Buckinghamshire County Council LTP area
where Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) have been declared. South
Buckinghamshire and Wycombe District councils have declared AQMAs in
relation to motorway emissions but not in relation to local road transport.

Aylesbury Vale District Council declared an AQMA in relation to predicted
exceedences of the annual mean NO2 objective adjacent to the A41 Tring
Road in July 2005. Further assessment and action planning is underway.

The LTP strategy elements relating to congestion and accessibility that are
expected to have air quality impacts are highlighted. With respect to the
congestion shared priority, traffic management measures, travel planning,
encouraging public transport and walking and cycling are considered also to
have air quality benefits. With respect to the accessibility shared priority,
measures to encourage increased bus use and walking and cycling are
considered also to have air quality benefits.

Specifically in relation to the Aylesbury Vale (AQMA), possible mitigation
measures during the 2nd LTP period will be the use of clear zones or low
emission zones and encouraging rail freight. There are also proposals in the
LTP for the development of three primary public transport corridors, improved
bus services, development of Park & Ride (Aylesbury Parkway Station),
development of an express bus route and completion of the Aylesbury
transport hub.

As with the provisional Plan, LTP8 has been included with a baseline for
2004/5 of 47µg/m3 and target of <40µg/m3. However, there is insufficient
evidence to support the achievement of this target without inclusion of specific
measures within the AQMA and consideration to assessment of their impacts.
LTP2 (change in area wide traffic) has been included as the intermediate
outcome indicator to monitor progress.

A summary of the local pollution situation is provided for all Districts, including
Chiltern District which has no AQMA areas to date. Emerging issues are
considered and the work through the regional air quality strategy discussed.




Criterion 9 - Road Safety
 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
Evidence for assessment of Criterion Nine

Assessment = Excellent


The LTP shows that improving safety is clearly a high priority for the local
authority. It has demonstrated clear evidence of partnership working with the
community, media, police, Highways Agency and others.

The target for slight casualties, BVP199 is stretching as is the target for all
Killed and Seriously injured BVPI99x.

The Authority has considered the link between road safety and children who
are classed as disadvantaged and have taken steps to increase awareness of
this issue. Their ‘Every Child Matters’ scheme targets this group.

Throughout the plan and specifically in the road safety section Bucks have
undertaken detailed analysis and research with specialist support from TRL in
order to discover the main causes of accidents. The plan demonstrates clear
links between road safety and maintenance and asset management to ensure
the accidents caused by the road environment are reduced to a minimum.

The plan identifies the need to reduce accidents on rural roads where single
vehicle loss of control crashes represent the largest single type of crash in
Buckinghamshire. Use of safety cameras has seen a 53% reduction in
accidents between 1999 and 2004.

Motor cycle casualties are identified as an area to focus on, for example there
had been a 100% increase in fatalities in 2002 over the previous year. They
have formulated the Better Biker Campaign which has been running since
April 2004.

The safety section of the plan gives an overview of how Bucks plan to meet
their road safety targets.

There is a clear link between road safety and accessibility in the plan with the
safety section showing clear links to all the other priorities such as congestion,
environment and maintenance.

The Casualty Matrix in the Safety section shows that Bucks have identified
the groups who present the greatest potential for casualty reduction.

The authority have conducted public consultation on speed management and
a number of revised speed limits will be in place by the end of 2008.


Overall Comments on the Plan
 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste
Overall Assessment = Excellent

The final version of the LTP has been strengthened in a number of the areas
identified in the December 2005 settlement decision letter. The plan fully
deserves its overall “excellent” ranking.

The sections dealing with the context of the plan have been enhanced by
information on how it has been shaped by national, regional and local
influences. The parts of the plan demonstrating the links with the education
agenda have also been strengthened.

Overall the sections of the plan dealing with analysis were of an excellent
standard and the completion of the SEA process represents an improvement
from the draft stage. We have made comments on the cycling strategy for
rural areas as well as on the freight strategy.

The sections on involvement and consultation in the final plan have shown a
clear improvement since draft stage. There are also a number of additional
references to partnership working.

On performance management and local priorities the plan has a number of
stretch targets, with provisions in place for measurement and monitoring. The
plan demonstrates effective and widespread consultation, involvement and a
customer focused approach.

The sections of the plan dealing with accessibility, congestion and with air
quality have been assessed as good, whilst the sections on road safety in the
plan are of an excellent standard. The LTP clearly shows that improving
safety is a high priority for the council.




 Printed on 100% recycled paper with 75% post-consumer waste

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:11/4/2011
language:English
pages:17