4. Progress Towards Targets
Overall Progress on Core Targets
4.1 We have made excellent progress in meeting the LTP Core Targets. 62% of them are on track (go to Figure 4.1). There are now 1.2 million extra people travelling by bus, 26% more people cycling, the lowest ever number of children killed or seriously injured in accidents and our highway network is in the best state it has been in. This is all against a national backdrop of a declining bus and cycle use. We are reversing national trends.
Figure 4.1: Greater Bristol Progress on Core Targets
Not Achieved or Not on Track 38%
Achieved or On Track 62%
4.2 For some of the Core Targets we have seen improvement but not achieved the challenging goals we set ourselves. Setting targets is difficult. Who could have foreseen at the start of the LTP the huge increase in the price of oil and the impact this would have had on fares and bus patronage at the end of the plan period? Yet despite this we still achieved growth. Overall we believe that our LTP has been successful and that judged against our achievements we have performed well.
4.3 Furthermore our progress is across a richly diverse area with characteristics, problems and issues ranging from those of deprived inner city areas to isolated settlements, from vibrant city centres to bustling market towns and from the suburbs to our villages and hamlets. Few other LTPs in the country have had to deal with such diversity. We have done so successfully as Table 4.1 shows. More detail can be found in the four Proforma A tables at the end of the Delivery Report.
45 Table 4.1: Achieving Our Targets Target Start of End of Achievement Target Plan Plan Principal 16.6% 8.0% 52% reduction in On track – Roads (2001/02) (2005/06) roads in need of target exceeded structural repair and 12% threshold met Non- 37.4% 13.6% 64% reduction in On track – Principal (2002/03) (2005/06) roads in need of target exceeded Roads structural repair Unclassified 25.4% 9.6% 62% reduction in On track – Roads (2002/03) (2005/06) roads in need of target exceeded structural repair and 12% threshold met Bus 52.8M 54.0M Extra 1.2M bus Not on track – Patronage (2001/02) (2005/06) passengers extra 2.55M passengers required to meet target Rural Index =100 Index =113 13% On track – Accessibility (2001/02) improvement in target exceeded rural accessibility KSIs 467 430 (2005) 37 fewer serious Not on track – (1994-98 or fatal Further average) casualites reduction of 70 required to meet target Child KSIs 60 43 (2005) 17 fewer serious On track – (1994-98 or fatal target exceeded average) casualites Cycling Index =100 Index =126 26% increase in Not on track – (2000/01) (2005/06) cycling 30% increase required to meet target
4.4 We recognise when judged against some of our targets we have not always been successful but we believe that narrowly failing an ambitious target like cycling is better than succeeding against a very easy target. Achieving bus patronage growth, when most of the rest of England outside London is experiencing decline, is again a tremendous achievement.
4.5 Our greatest disappointment is our slow progress towards reducing the numbers of people killed and seriously injured in road accidents. Notwithstanding our concerns about the baseline, which DfT and the Police have acknowledged under-recording accidents by up to 40%, we had planned a more significant reduction. Looking ahead the JLTP puts in place measures to improve our road safety performance and
46 indeed the most recent accident figures show that these are having success. Integrated Transport
Bus Patronage and Satisfaction
4.6 In the five years an extra 1.2m passengers were carried on Greater Bristol bus services (go to Figure 4.2). Although growth was not as much as we had hoped it is a creditable performance seen against the general decline in national bus patronage outside London. (In the first four years we had growth of almost 3% compared to a decrease of 4.5% in passenger journeys in English non-Passenger Transport Executive areas). Where we have worked with the operators on showcase routes there has been substantial patronage growth (12% on A38 Bristol/Cribbs Causeway route in the first year; almost 10% on service 13 in Bath in twelve months; 20% on service 7 in Weston- super-Mare in two years). By 2003/04 we were on track to meet our Greater Bristol target (go to Figure 4.2).
4.7 We are disappointed that the last two years has seen a drop in patronage, notably in Bristol. The reasons are thought to include shortages of bus drivers and fare increases due to higher fuel and insurance costs. (Fares went up on three occasions in 2005). Another factor is the short term adverse effect of the Broadmead shopping redevelopment although when the new shopping centre opens in 2008 large increases in passengers are expected.
Figure 4.2: Bus Passengers in Greater Bristol Not on track but 1.2m extra passengers
m
u 57 n n a 56 r e p 55 s r ) e n
g 54 o
i Target n l l e i
s 53 Actual m s ( a p
52 f o
r 51 e b
m 50 u
N 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
4.8 Outside Bristol the renewal of the Bath bus fleet by First and the introduction of a flat fare system in Weston-super-Mare have helped boost passenger numbers. The rise in South Gloucestershire in
47 2005/06 is at least in part attributable to the Bus Service Review carried out in 2004/05. This led to the introduction of new and enhanced services and improved bus rail links to Bristol Parkway and Keynsham stations. In Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire we have achieved our 2005 targets and North Somerset is well on the way to achieving its10 year target. We expected to achieve 1.1m extra passengers outside Bristol in the five years but actual growth was 2.1m (go to Figure 4.2a).
Note: Outside Bristol Figure 4.2a: Bus Passengers Outside Bristol, refers to the areas On track, patronage up by 2.1m of Bath & North East 4.9 Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire.
23 ) r n
e Actual f o p i
22 o l
l s i r
r Target e
e m 21 b ( g
n m m e u 20 u s N n s n a 19 a p 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
Surveys in 2003/04 showed that 38% of people were satisfied with bus services. Our next survey is in 2006/07 when we expect the rating will have improved.
Remedial Action for Buses
4.10 In partnership with the operators we have continued to deliver a range of integrated transport measures to foster bus use and we intend to accelerate this programme (go to Table 5.1). The TravelBristol Info Centre has been set up to enhance bus information in the city and we have worked together to bring in the area-wide Diamond concessionary travel scheme. We have reviewed and updated our bus strategy as part of our new Joint LTP. As shown by the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study we will rely on the success of our Greater Bristol Bus Network and Bath Package major scheme investments to really give an impetus to upgrading services and achieving passenger growth. In 2005 we signed a Concordat with First to implement the Greater Bristol Bus Network scheme. Bus Punctuality Improvement Partnerships are also being formed to tackle problems of unreliability.
Road Casualties
4.11 In the last five years the number of people in the Greater Bristol area killed or seriously injured has decreased by almost 7% (go to Figure
48 4.3). The figure of 430 for 2005/06 was significantly down on the previ- ous year and we see this trend continuing. Measured against the 1994- 98 baseline both the South Gloucestershire and North Somerset tar- gets are on track to be met. South Gloucestershire’s 2005 figure was the lowest since 1996 despite traffic and population growth at above national average rates. This success lies in a five year programme of active and targeted local safety and engineering schemes backed up by major and innovative education and training campaigns (go to Chapter 5 Road Safety Plan Strategy). The casualty figure in North Somerset dropped by 28% over the last year from 111 to 80 and this begins to reflect the amount of funding that has been allocated to road safety projects.
4.12 Targets in Bristol and Bath and North East Somerset are not on track but we believe progress is better than the figures suggest as the 1994- 98 baseline is low, perhaps by up to 40%, due to the under- reporting of serious casualties in that period.
Figure 4.3: Killed or Seriously Injured Casualties in Greater Bristol area Casualties down 8% on 1994-98 average but not yet on track
600 512 500 467 462 455 555 498 525
o d 453 e d 400 438 430 Actual
r 423 e
l 408 u l j 392 i 376 n k i 360 Target
344 f
y 300 328 l o 312 297 s r 281 u e o b i
r 200 m e u s r N 100
0
9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 e 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 v 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 -9 4 9 Years
4.13 Whilst there are encouraging trends in the casualty figures for pedestri- ans and car occupants, accident trends among cyclists and powered two wheeler (PTW) riders are disappointing.
Road Safety Remedial Action
4.14 In North Somerset a Road Safety Action Plan was produced identifying the most vulnerable road users. This has assisted in refining the types
49 of schemes and educational/publicity work undertaken so that the greatest benefit can be achieved for the amount of investment avail- able.
4.15 To address higher than average accident rates in disadvantaged areas the Kingswood Road Safety Project targeted all age ranges with road- shows, activity competitions, driver training and talks and a ‘Road Safety Day.’ David Jamieson, the then Minister for Transport, praised the campaign for providing local people with helpful advice about how to stay safe on the roads. The project has been repeated with similar success in Yate.
4.16 In Bath and North East Somerset successful reductions have been achieved by comprehensive and collaborative initiatives such as Safer Routes to School and safety cameras. ‘Road Safety- The Way For- ward’ was published in 2005 promoting a range of measures, including engineering, education and enforcement and partnership working.
4.17 In our JLTP we have set out a comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan with measures directed at both urban and rural areas and extending beyond the traditional ‘Education, Engineering, Enforcement’. Speed management and enforcement will play their part and we look forward to making good use of the extra resources coming through changes in camera safety partnership funding.
4.18 We intend to establish an area-wide programme of road safety educa- tion, training and publicity initiatives for PTW riders and other road users and focus engineering on sites with high proportions of PTW cas- ualties. If our Greater Bristol Bus Network major scheme goes ahead there is also scope to open up more bus lanes for PTW riders.
4.19 For cyclists we will enhance our training programmes and implement a range of measures to improve safety, as outlined in our JLTP Cycling Action Plan.
Child Road Casualties
4.20 Tackling child casualties is a success story. The number killed or seri- ously injured fluctuates because of the relatively small numbers. But taking our area as a whole, total child casualties have fallen substan- tially and we are on track to meet our overall target (Figure 4.4).
50 Figure 4.4 Child Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) Casualties in Greater Bristol Area On track s e
i 80 t l
a 67
u 70 64
s 60 58
a 56 60 C 50 49 I 45 S 50 54 54 LTP Target
K 52 51 48 48
d 40
l 43 Actual
i 42
h 39 30 36 C
33
f 30
o 20
r
e 10 b
m 0 u N 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 v 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 A 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -9 4 9 9 1 Cycling
4.21 Cycling in the Greater Bristol area has grown by 26% since 2000/01 in sharp contrast to the downward trend nationally (go to Figure 4.5). (Between 2000 and 2004 cycling in our area went up by 22% com- pared to a 7% drop nationally: DfT Transport Trends 2005, based on vehicle kilometres). We are proud of our achievements and have chosen to report in detail on the success of our cycling strategy in Chapter 5.
Figure 4.5: Growth in Cycling in Greater Bristol Area 0 0
1 Growth but 2005/06 target not quite met
f o
x
e 150 d n i
140 131.4
e 122.4 s 130 a 117.2 B
120 Target . 108.0 125.8 g 110 122.9 n 102.1 Actual
i 115.8 l
c 100 105.8 y
c 100 101.0
90 f o
80 l e v
e 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 L / / / / / / 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 20
4.22 We set our sights very high and although exceptional progress has been made, it has not been possible to meet our ambitious target. In
51 Bristol the figures have fluctuated and whilst 3% below the trajectory in 2005/06, cycle usage is expected to recover. The complementary local indicator measuring cycling flows into the central area of Bristol has shown great success, with a 60% increase. This is even more signific- ant bearing in mind that this growth is additional to an already high base.
4.23 There has been a sustained increase in Bath and North East Somer- set, one of the highest across the South West authorities. Because of significant growth in the early years of the period a more stretching, 5- year target was adopted in 2003. The final figure for 2005 was below the target but only by 2%.
4.24 Over the LTP period cycling has increased by 28% in South Gloucestershire and the target has been achieved. The widespread implementation of measures (go to Table 5.4 Cycling Plan Strategy), the filling in of ‘missing gaps’, promotion of Travel Plans (go to Table 5.5 Travel Plan Strategy) and extensive publicity have all helped max- imise the role of cycling.
4.25 North Somerset has seen an encouraging increase in cycling over the five year period although the increase has not been in line with our tra- jectory. From a baseline of 4919 in 1999/00 cycling in the district grew to 5230 by 2005/06, an increase of 6.3%.
Remedial Action for Cycling
4.26 Our JLTP Cycling Action Plan is an essential part of our strategies for tackling congestion and improving accessibility. We will be working with our partners to further promote cycling, for example by increasing travel plan activities and securing more infrastructure through land use planning. Provision of traffic free routes and convenient and safe on- road facilities will continue to be key features in our implementation programme.
4.27 Education, training, publicity and promotion will continue to back up our capital investment in infrastructure. Expansion of bus lanes through our Greater Bristol Bus Network major scheme would also give a fillip to cycling, as shown with the A38 showcase bus route in Bristol.
Rural Accessibility
4.28 There are about 15000 households who live in small villages, hamlets or scattered rural communities. They represent only 4% of the Greater Bristol area’s population and providing them with even a minimal con- ventional bus service has been a real challenge. Nevertheless we are on track overall to meet our targets, assisted by Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and Rural Bus Challenge funding as well as our own revenue support.
52 4.29 In South Gloucestershire 4 new bus services were introduced in 2004 augmented by a further 27 peak hour rural buses and enhanced hourly services on 8 key routes in 2005. The result: the ten year target met in five years. North Somerset is also on track to meet its 2010 target with the filling in gaps in bus service provision planned from 2006/07 on- wards. We have found in Bath and North East Somerset that the dis- persed pattern of many small communities is especially suited to com- munity transport rather than mainstream bus services. There the 2005 figure for bus service access is slightly below the trajectory but com- munity transport patronage has gone up to compensate.
Highway Maintenance
Background
4.30 We look after almost 5000 km of roads and through our substantial capital and revenue programmes we have made great strides in im- proving their condition. Overall, we are satisfied that we are on track to meet our targets. Key challenges in the last five years have included the difficulty in monitoring highway condition because of changes in survey methods and the exceptional weather in winter 2000/01. We have carried out 337 maintenance schemes involving 205km of car- riageways.
4.31 Bristol City Council has developed its own highway network manage- ment plan to address local conditions and provide a wider assessment of the highway. Whilst this approach did not include trajectories, mak- ing it difficult to show combined trajectories and targets, Figures 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 do indicate Bristol’s 2005/06 performances.
Condition of Principal Roads
4.32 Monitoring the condition of the Greater Bristol area’s 400km of ‘A’ roads changed from deflectograph to SCANNER surveys so it is diffi- cult to compare recent figures with those in the early LTP years. Based on the most up-to-date figures we are satisfied that we have achieved our individual targets. In 2005/06 we estimate that only 33km of our principal road network were in need of structural repair. This represents 8%, much better than the DfT’s benchmark of 12% for good condition (go to Table 4.2). Figure 4.6 compares performance across the LTP period outside Bristol (areas of Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire) with the LTP targets. Bristol’s performance in 2005/06 is shown on Figure 4.6 as clearly meeting the 12% benchmark.
Table 4.2: Proportion of Principal Road Network in Need of Struc- tural Repair (actual %)
Year Bristol Outside Bristol Greater Bristol
53 Area Total 2000/01 0.3 17.9 13.9 2001/02 7.0 19.5 16.6 2002/03 14.7 17.2 16.6 2003/04 14.7 16.4 16.0 2004/05 42.8 25.9 29.8 2005/06 11.1 7.1 8.0 Note: Outside Bristol refers to the areas of Bath & North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire.
Figure 4.6: Maintenance of Principal Roads
30 r
i Actual
a 25 p e r
f DfT Threshold o 20
d e e Target n
15 n i
s
d Bristol 2005/05
a 10
o Performance r
f o 5 %
0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
Note: Target and actual performance trajectories relate to Bath & North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire only.
4.33 Schemes completed in the five years have included:
A367 Wellsway between A36 and Odd Down in Bath: strengthened and resurfaced in 2003/04. Combined with new drainage, footway, lighting and signing at a cost of £2.3m, a successful bid for Excep- tional Maintenance funding. A38 Highridge to Barrow Tanks: another successful Exceptional Maintenance funding scheme costing £2.1m on the main route to Bristol International Airport. A38 Aztec West gyratory, near Junction 16 on the M5: resurfacing scheme requiring extensive public and business consultation be- cause of high traffic volumes and the residential environment. Work done at night, with the full surface available for daytime traffic. Low noise surfacing materials used. A36 Lower Bristol Road in Bath, comprehensive maintenance scheme with substantial night working to minimise disruption to traffic.
54 A37 Wells Road at Whitchurch: partnership working with utility com- panies to enable their infrastructure projects to go ahead during road closure.
Condition of Non-Principal Roads
4.34 As with the principal road network, changing survey methods make it difficult to measure progress on maintaining our 1200 km of non-prin- cipal roads. But again we are confident that our targets have been met (go to Table 4.3). In 2005/06 we estimate that 164 km were in need of structural attention. This represented 13.6% of the network, slightly above the DfT 12% threshold but nevertheless a great improvement on the 2002/03 figure of 37.4%. There is a very clear downward trend here and building on this success and our experience we are confident the 12% DfT threshold will be soon be reached in the JLTP period. Figure 4.9 compares performance Outside Bristol with the LTP targets. Bris- tol’s final year performance in 2005/06 is also shown with the 12% benchmark being met.
Table 4.3: Proportion of Non- Principal Road Network in Need of Structural Repair (actual %)
Year Bristol Outside Bristol Greater Bristol Area Total 2002/03 26.8 38.6 37.4 2003/04 26.8 23.4 23.7 2004/05 2.2 17.2 15.6 2005/06 9.0 14.2 13.6 Note: Outside Bristol refers to the areas of Bath & North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire.
Figure 4.7: Maintenance of Non-Principal Roads
r 45.00 i a
p 40.00
e Target r
f 35.00 o
d 30.00 Actual e
e 25.00 n
n
i 20.00 DfT Threshold
s
d 15.00 a
o 10.00 Bristol 2005/06 r
f Performance
o 5.00
% 0.00 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
Note: Target and actual performance trajectories relate to Bath & North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire only. Target higher for 2005/06 owing to re-basing by Bath & North East Somerset.
55 Condition of Unclassified Roads
4.35 We have over 3200km of unclassified roads to maintain. Progress on improving the condition of the network has been good. By 2005/06 we estimate that only 9.6% of these roads are in need of structural repair (go to Table 4.4). In Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire we are well below our own targets and the 12% DfT threshold. The proportion of unclassified roads in Bristol needing work is above the DfT threshold but we consider that we have arrested the deterioration in the city’s network and it is now in reason- ably sound condition. Figure 4.8 compares performance outside Bristol with the LTP targets. Bristol’s 2005/06 performance is shown.
Table 4.4: Proportion of Unclassified Road Network in Need of Structur- al Repair (actual %)
Year Bristol Outside Bristol Greater Bristol Area Total 2002/03 15.9 29.4 25.4 2003/04 7.0 15.9 13.3 2004/05 4.6 13.8 11.1 2005/06 18.3 5.9 9.6 Note: Outside Bristol refers to the areas of Bath & North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire.
Figure 4.8: Maintenance of Unclassified Roads
35
30
r Actual i a
p 25 e r
f Target o
20 d e
e DfT Threshold
n 15
n i 10 % Bristol 2005/06 5 Performance
0 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
Note: Target and actual performance trajectories relate to Bath & North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire only.
Footways
56 4.36 In 2005/06 20.3% of our 6000km of Group 1 and 2 footways were in need of repair. This is below the DfT threshold of 25% and a great im- provement on the 29.5% registered in 2003/04. We spent £7.9m on footway maintenance capital schemes in the five year period.
Bridges and Structures
4.37 We implemented 51 bridge schemes at a cost of £7.6m and 65 other structural maintenance projects at a cost of £6.6m. Schemes have in- cluded:
Bristol Bridge: £1.3m project to strengthen city centre crossing of the Floating Harbour. Yanley Viaduct on A370, replacement of bearings on main com- muter route into Bristol. Somervale Road (East) on A362 between Radstock and Midsomer Norton, reinforced concrete stress relieving slab above existing arch barrel.
Capital Spending
4.38 We spent some £67m of mainstream LTP funding on maintenance schemes. In addition we have deployed additional funding from other sources, including:
DfT Exceptional Maintenance funding (£4.717m for A367 and A38 schemes). Local Public Service Agreements (for example North Somerset’s £1m in 2004/05). Council capital resources (for example £0.5m for footway recon- struction in 2004/05 from Bristol General Fund; funding of £1.15m for street lighting in South Gloucestershire in 2004-2006). £4.4m spent on highway maintenance from Bristol City Council’s own resources reflecting the high priority given to maintaining and improving the highway fabric. £1.6m additional spending by Bath and North East Somerset on highway maintenance. Additional SCA (for example emergency funding of £0.49m for Hin- ton Hill slope stabilisation near Wellow, south of Bath; funding of £0.14m to remove highway elms in South Gloucestershire).
Revenue Spending
4.39 In the LTP period we spent of the order of £90m of revenue funding on asset management including:
Carriageways. Footways. Drainage.
57 Winter maintenance. Hedges and verges. Street lighting. Bridges. Public Rights of Way. Cycling. Traffic signals. Signs and lines.
Progress on Local Targets
4.40 In the LTP we all had a wide range of local targets both outcome and output based. Relevant targets, particularly outcome based ones, have been drawn upon throughout this Delivery Report.
Summary
4.41 Table 4.5 provides a useful summary of our overall progress towards meeting LTP targets.
Table 4.5: Summary of Performance on Core Targets Core Indicator Bath & North Bristol North South Greater East Somerset Gloucester- Bristol Somerset shire Principal Roads achieved achieved achieved achieved achieved BV223 Non Principal achieved achieved achieved achieved achieved Roads BV224a Unclassified achieved not on track achieved achieved achieved Roads BV224b Bus passenger achieved not on track not on track achieved not on track journeys Access to rural not on track ------on track on track on track bus services Deaths and serious injuries not on track not on track on track on track not on track Children killed and seriously on track not on track on track on track on track injured Cycling not achieved not on track not on track achieved not on track Note: Columns 2 to 5 reflect the data in Proforma A. Column 6 is our average performance taking the Greater Bristol area as a whole.
58