HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL
MONDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2008 AT 10.00 AM
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT PROJECTS PROGRAMMING
Report of the Director of Environment
Author: Mike Younghusband Tel: 01707 356551
Executive Member: Stuart Pile (Highways, Transport and Rural Affairs)
1 Purpose of report
1.1 To identify the implications of the funding shortfall on the delivery of the 2008/09 Integrated Transport Programme and seek the endorsement of the Panel to:
· A programme of Integrated Transport projects for 2008-9 based on the draft budgets set by Cabinet
· A core set of projects to form the foundation of a medium term programme
2 Summary
2.1 The January 2008 Cabinet Panel received details of the potential standstill budget position and capital programme bids. The Panel requested a briefing on the implications of the reduced funding on the Integrated Transport Programme, whilst expressing support for investment in an enhanced maintenance programme, the Royston Railway Crossing and the street Lighting Energy Reduction Pilot.
2.2 This report sets out all the proposed funding availability and recommends an ITP programme for 2008-09 that balances the risks to target delivery across the ITP portfolio.
2.3 Given the agreed strategy [H&T Panel - July 2007] to shift towards developing more ‘town changing’ schemes which require longer term planning, the report recommends that a group of such schemes form the foundation of a medium term programme.
3 Recommendations
3.1 The Panel is asked to endorse:
· The programme of Integrated Transport projects for 2008-9 based on the draft budgets set by Cabinet
· A core set of projects to form the foundation of a medium term programme
· HCC supporting Watford Council in making a Cycling Demonstration Town bid.
4 Background
4.1 The January 2008 Cabinet Panel received details of the potential standstill budget position and capital programme bids. The Panel requested a briefing on the implications of the reduced funding on the Integrated Transport Projects (ITP) programme, whilst expressing support for investment in an enhanced maintenance programme, the Royston Railway Crossing and the street Lighting Energy Reduction Pilot.
4.2 At its meeting of 4th February Cabinet agreed to recommend the standstill budget for ITP related budgets and requested that “the Director of Environment prepare a detailed programme of works after consultation with the Executive Member and the Highways & Transport Cabinet Panel for submission to Cabinet in March, to include a review of all of the non-maintenance highway capital bids within the overall totals now recommended by Cabinet.”
4.3 Learning the lessons from LTP1, HCC resolved not to set itself challenging targets for LTP2. Thus it has been feasible to deliver a ‘core’ programme based on the ‘Existing Funded Programme’ and remain broadly on target since 2006/07, when the IWP Delivery Programme was cut back mid year. However, this approach is unlikely to be sustainable and it is likely that adverse impacts on target delivery will begin to manifest themselves to varying degrees across the portfolio from 2008/09 onwards.
5 Budgets
5.1 Table 1 shows the relevant ITP related capital bids and the proposed ITP related capital and revenue budgets for 2008/09:
Table 1: ITP related budget
Description / Bid / Allocation**LTP Integrated Transport – Existing / 8,010 / 8,010
LTP Integrated Transport – Additional* / 4,150 / 0
Disabled Crossing Facilities / 380 / 380
Section 106 Speed - Limit Compliance / 690 / 765
Section 106 – Mode Share of Journeys to School / 32 / 82
Section 106 – Cycling Trips / 0 / 3
Section 106 – Casualty Reduction / 0 / 116
Royston Railway Crossing / 130 / 0
Rights of Way Network Management / 320 / 320
Sustainable Transport Policies / 1,502 / 1,502
Total Capital / 15,214 / 11,178
Traffic Movement & Safety – Revenue*** / 1,596 / 1,596
Total Capital and Revenue for ITP / 16,810 / 12,774
Less Scheme Design Costs for 2009/10 minor schemes / 0 / -1200
Grand Total of Funds Available / 16,810 / 11,574
* The ‘LTP Integrated Transport – Additional’ bid represented the difference between the allocation within the HCC’s published 3 year capital programme and the provisional funding levels set out in LTP2.
** The ‘Allocation’ represents the Cabinet Recommendations plus a net £244k additional S106 funding that has become available through a recent review of the S106 portfolio.
***In recent years the ‘Traffic Movement & Safety Budget’ has part funded the Discretionary Budget, Safer Routes to School, Disabled Pedestrian Crossings and Casualty Reduction programmes. (The figure above excludes the contribution to the Discretionary Budget.)
5.2 The capital bids for the ‘Existing Programme Funded’ were prepared in August 2007 predominantly by drawing on the IWP Preparation Programme endorsed by Cabinet in March 2007. Given the predicted funding profiles the Preparation Programme was necessarily modest.
5.3 Since submission of the bids many schemes have completed their public consultation phase, have been refined and subjected to further cost estimates. A number of schemes have faltered at the consultation stage, whilst others have achieved lower cost estimates than originally budgeted for. A number of schemes could also be brought forward as substitutes because S106 funding has become available.
5.4 All of these factors help reduce the residual number of schemes within the current Preparation Programme that cannot be delivered at the proposed funding level.
5.5 However, by not making full substitutions through adding in other schemes into the already modest Preparation Programme, the backlog of schemes in the longer-term Forward Works Programme is, of course, accumulating and creating the frustrations within those communities that are expecting action in the short term.
6 Crossing facilities for disabled people (BVPI165)
6.1 HCC has invested heavily over recent years in adjusting its stock of signalled pedestrian crossings to meet BVPI165 for disabled crossings.
6.2 Nationally, this BVPI has proved controversial in the way it has been redefined leading to abortive works, the way that it is unrealistically measured and, most importantly, there is doubt that these exact adjustments would be given a high priority by disabled people.
6.3 It is, therefore, recommended that this investment programme is suspended during 2008/09, whilst local disabled people’s groups are consulted on what their needs and priorities are with a view to developing a programme of targeted improvements from 2009/10. In the meanwhile it is recommended that the £380k allocated to this programme be added to the Accessibility target, one of the key objectives of which is to improve access for disabled people.
7 Medium Term Planning
7.1 Following the review of LTP1, HCC’s strategy has been to place a greater emphasis on bringing forward ‘town changing’ schemes. In accordance with this strategy it is recommended that the following, substantial projects continue to form the foundations of the ‘core’ programme for the remainder of LTP2 and into 2011/12.
· St Albans Abbey Line
· Royston Railway Crossing
· Stevenage Interchange
· A602 improvements
7.2 All of these schemes:
· Contribute well across a wide portfolio of targets
· Have attracted substantial community support and expectation
· Have required significant partnership working over long lead in times
· Have attracted or will attract, significant third party funding
7.3 It is also recommended that the following emerging and developing projects are included within a core programme on the basis that they will also have the same attributes:
· Hatfield Station Interchange
· SW Herts Cycling Demonstration Town
· Key scheme(s) identified as priorities from the SW Herts Strategy Review
· Key scheme(s) identified within the proposed Waltham Cross & Cheshunt Transport Plan, which also support the Olympic site.
7.4 All of the above projects or initiatives are described in more detail in Appendix A.
7.5 It would be imprudent for the county council to guarantee absolutely a long term funding commitment to the core programme. However, there needs to be a working assumption so that:
· Investment can be targeted on scheme preparation and statutory processes
· Further funding opportunities can be sought and seized
· Purposeful negotiations with partners can be undertaken
7.6 The ‘balancing items’ within future ITP programmes would, therefore, be the more minor schemes which only have a 2 year preparation and delivery cycle.
8 Recommended ITP Programme for 2008-09
8.1 The recommended programme is set out by target theme. Table 2 has been included to show the effect of the changes that panel are being asked to agree relative to the cabinet agreed capital programme. The changes are being recommended in order to minimise the risk to target delivery as recommended by the panel at their previous meeting and support the development of ‘town-changing’ projects.
8.2 A few schemes contribute to more than one target. It has been possible to move a few projects from one target programme to another in order to preserve them.
Table 2: Summary of recommended programme by LTP target
Target programme 2008/09 / Cabinet approved capital (ITP - Existing) / Cabinet approved capital (Other ITP) / Cabinet approved capital (Total) / Recommended programmeSafety (KSI, Child KSI, Slights) / 2,200 / 2,200 / 2,802
Speed Limit Compliance / 670 / 690 / 1,360 / 1,491
Congestion / 1,130 / 1,130 / 1,563
Passenger Transport / 1,230 / 1,230 / 1,370
Cycling trips / 750 / 750 / 742
Mode share of journeys to school / 1,130 / 32 / 1,162 / 1,673
Abbey Line / 60 / 60 / 91
Quality of Life / 280 / 280 / 477
Accessibility (incorporating crossing facilities for disabled people budget) / 510 / 380 / 890 / 890
Rights of Way / 50 / 320 / 370 / 475
Air Quality / 0 / 0 / 0
Sustainable Transport Policies / 1,502 / 1,502 / 0
Total / 9,512 / 1,422 / 10,934 / 11,574
Traffic Movement & Safety – Revenue / 1,596 / 1,596 / 0
(Less scheme design costs for 2009/10) / 1,200
Total / 11,108 / 1,422 / 12,530* / 12,774*
* The additional funding required to deliver the programme will be met through additional s106 contributions that have since become available – see Table 1)
8.3 The following tables set out which schemes:
· Can and cannot be delivered with the proposed level of overall funding
· Can be developed ready to act as substitutes in case other schemes do not progress to programme, or the main programme comes in under budget
· Have been added into the programme due to opportunities (such as S106) arising since the bids were submitted
8.4 Speed Limit Compliance
IWP Ref / Scheme Name / Location / CommentRecommended Programme
ITP08041 / St Annes Road Traffic Calming / London Colney / Funded S106 funded
ITP08038 / Kings Road Traffic Calming / London Colney / Fully S106 funded
ITP 08053 and ITP08054 / A602 and A120 Speed Limit / East Herts
ITP08029 / St Ippolyt’s Parish Plan / North Herts
SAM05001 / Verulum Road / Folly Lane / St Albans / Part S106 contribution
ITP6029 / North Bushey Area Study phase 1b / Borehamwood / Fully S106 funded
ITP08037 / White Horse Lane / London Colney / Fully S106 funded
ITP08039 / High Street, Barnet Road / London Colney / Fully S106 funded
No IWP number / Sydney Road / Watford
Total / £1,491K
Substitute Schemes
ITP08033 / Lampits speed reduction / Hoddesdon / Original mini roundabout scheme was found not to be feasible and a VA sign is proposed instead
Total / £65k
Unfunded Schemes
ITP07005 / Shenley Road / Borehamwood / Traffic calming aspect abandoned, but main project proceeding.
Total / £100k
This would introduce a low risk of compromising target delivery.
8.5 Congestion
IWP Ref / Scheme Name / Location / CommentRecommended Programme
COM030 / Travelsmart Project / Watford
ITP06165 / Windmill Lane / Cheshunt / Carried over from 07/08
ITP08051 / Bishops Stortford Signing / Bishops Stortford
TTP027 / Area Wide Signing / St Albans
No IWP number / Development of Automatic Vehicle Location System / Countywide / Part
No IWP number / UTC Replacement / Watford
No IWP number / Trial HGV hub and spoke TRO / St Albans
No IWP number / Implement car sharing database / Letchworth and Baldock
COM07028 / VA Signs / St Albans
TTP00056 / Area Wide Signing Project / Watford
ITP07049 / A121 Cycle route / Waltham Cross
Total / £1,563k
Substitute Schemes
No IWP number / Development of Automatic Vehicle Location System / Countywide
ITP06132 / Station Road, Victoria Street, Vaughan Road / Harpenden
Total / £287k
This investment level will introduce a low risk of compromising target delivery, as the AVL project is not as developed as planned, due to prolonged negotiations with the bus industry.
8.6 Casualty reduction
IWP Ref / Scheme Name / Location / CommentRecommended Programme
SAR 05008 / A41 Berrygrove Interchange / Bushey
SAR 08022 / A411 Barnet Lane, Furzehill Road
SAR 08013 / A41 Elton Way Phase 2 and Otterspool Access Road / Bushey
SAR 04040 / A5135 Shenley Road Borehamwood High Street / Borehamwood
SAR 05008 / A4178 Cassio Rd/ Malborough / Watford
SAR 05022 / B487 Redbourn Lane (A5183 to A1081 section) / St Albans Dist.
SAR07014 / Hemel Hempstead Child Safety Ph 2 ( Long Chaulden) / Hemel Hempstead
SAR 06001 / A414 M10 Park Street Roundabout / St Albans Dist.
SAR 07015 / A414 Green Lane Roundabout / St Albans Dist.
SAR 08033 / A5183 Redbourn Bypass est 465m Sw Rdbt B487 (Caravan Site) / Redbourne
SAR 08034 / A414 j/w White Horse Lane / St Albans Dist.
SIS 021 / A1081 Milehouse Lane / St Vincents Drive / St Albans Dist.
SAR 07017 / A505 Hitchin to Luton Route Study Phase 1 / N Herts
SAR 08038 / B655 South of Pirton / N Herts
SAR 5035 / A507 at Clothall / Baldock
SAR 07019 / A10/ A121 Roundabout Phase 1 of 2 / Broxbourne
SAR 08049 / A10 Through Cheshunt Route / Cheshunt
SAM 08001 / School Crossing Patrol Improvements / County wide
Anti Skid Programme / Countywide
Total / £2,802k
The proposed programme is fully funded.
8.7 Passenger Transport
IWP Ref / Scheme Name / Location / CommentRecommended Programme
No IWP number / Passenger transport Infrastructure / Countywide
No IWP number / Passenger Transport Information / Countywide
No IWP number / RTPI/AVL project / Countywide
No IWP number / DDA Audits / Countywide
Total / £1,370k
This would introduce a low risk of compromising target delivery.