3rd Draft 17 June 2005
The Provisional LTP2
Preface by Chairs of MSTEG and MSTPC
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 1
Executive Summary
To follow.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 2
1. Vision and Objectives
1.1 The second Local Transport Plan for Merseyside restates the vision to develop:
‘a fully integrated safe transport network for Merseyside which supports economic and social regeneration and ensures good access for all, and which is operated to the highest standards to protect the environment and ensure quality of life’.
The LTP will support the economic development of Merseyside by managing for economic growth through the following objectives
(i) provide the right infrastructure to support economic growth;
(ii) provide access for all to ensure an inclusive community;
(iii) manage demand to provide an efficient transport network and support a healthier community by ensuring transport does not impair quality of life; and
(iv) protects and enhances the environment.
In seeking to deliver the agreed transport aspirations for Merseyside, the Local Transport Plan will take the following into account. It will:
(i) support the vision, aims and objectives of the sub regional partnership;
(ii) be set firmly within the wider Liverpool City Region framework and support regional and national policies and priorities;
(iii) be realistic and pragmatic in its aims and objectives taking account of the availability of resources;
(iv) be sufficiently flexible to be able to take account of changing demands and circumstances; and
(v) be responsive to the needs of the Merseyside community at all times.
1.2 Implementation
The LTP will put in place measures that will support the longer term strategy which is designed to create the economic growth of the Merseyside and wider Liverpool City Region. We will aim to support the following programme areas.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 3
Support the economic growth areas
– City Centre – Liverpool John Lennon Airport – Mersey Ports – Strategic Investment Areas (SIA’s)
Support sustainable communities. Support Capital of Culture and tourism. Ensure Merseyside is well connected.
The LTP will aim to ‘manage for economic growth’ through
(a) Selective investment to increase quality and capacity in the network;
(b) Managing demand for travel; and
(c) Making best use of existing resources.
2. Supporting the Merseyside Renaissance
2.1 Progress and Changes since LTP1
2.1.1 Merseyside has undergone great change over the lifetime of the current LTP programme. This change has been greater than anticipated and is probably accelerating at the current time. Current projections see this accelerating change lasting until 2010. (Section 2.4 discusses this in greater detail).
2.1.2 Of particular note are the hoped extension of John Lennon Airport, freight traffic through the Mersey Ports, and the re- birth of the City Centre.
2.1.3 In transport terms Merseyside has benefited from a high level of national funding; in combination with the second round of European Objective One funding this has allowed a step change both to the areas infrastructure in general and transport in particular.
2.1.4 Merseyside has also been highly successful in drawing in other sources of funding to support transport development. These include Urban Bus Challenge, European Research funding, Neighbourhood Renewal and contributions from partners as diverse as Jobcentreplus and Primary Care Trusts.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 4 This illustrates cross sector support for the importance of efficient and inclusive transport systems to facilitate and assist the regeneration of the area and the wider social agenda. This approach forms the foundations for what we are still to achieve in our second LTP.
2.1.5 We have achieved much in our first LTP. These achievements include:
(i) Approval for Line 1 of Merseytram.
(ii) The local franchising arrangements for Merseyrail.
(iii) Rising patronage in Merseyrail
(iv) The construction of Liverpool South Parkway.
(v) The introduction and expansion of Joblink.
(vi) The start of major investment and renewal via the City Centre Movement Strategy to support the renaissance of Liverpool City Centre.
(vii) New arrangements for tolling the Mersey tunnels.
(viii) Reducing certain types of road accident.
(ix) The expansion of TravelWise.
(x)
2.1.6 There are however areas where our progress has been less successful. Of particular concern are:
(i) Failure to present the declaration of Air Quality Management Areas in the City Centre and at the Rocket Junction at the end of the M62.
(ii) Cycling has not developed in the way and extent which was hoped for; and
(iii) Perhaps most critically the continuing decline of bus use is a real concern.
2.1.7 The revised Merseyside Bus Strategy will seek to address this continuing decline, but is considered that structurally the bus industry on Merseyside may not be capable of reversing the trend without intervention. We are therefore examining how changes may be made.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 5 2.1.8 These areas of failure will require continuing priority alongside the new challenges and opportunities presented by the areas regeneration.
2.1.9 As noted above this regeneration is probably happening at a quicker pace than may have been anticipated, and latest information suggests that some of the economic gaps between Merseyside and competitor cities may be closing. There remain large challenges. The consensus is that the Merseyside economy remains fragile.
2.1.10 The first LTP stated that congestion was not a particular issue for Merseyside, and therefore strongest demand management measures and in particular congestion charging were not appropriate. This policy would be reviewed in the light of economic growth during the lifetime of the first LTP.
2.1.11 This second LTP has some difficult balances to strike. The economic trajectory although upward is still considered to be some way from competitor cities; likewise traffic growth and congestion although growing are not considered to pose problems that require congestion charging. There is not political will for such measures at the present time, although it is recognised that it may need to be addressed in the future.
2.1.12 It is recognised that there are areas of growing concern, particularly the City Centre that will require packages of measures.
(These issues are discussed in more detail in Section XX).
2.1.13 In order to meet these challenges and opportunities, the LTP partnership has undertaken a number of detailed studies in preparation for this second LTP. These have included:
(i) A critical review of the successes and failures of LTP1;
(ii) A review of potential major schemes. (This is discussed further in Chapter 12).
(iii) The development of a Strategic Transport Model (this is described further in Chapter 3).
(iv) An examination of the role of TravelWise (this is discussed further in Section 4.7).
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 6 2.1.14 The results of this work are reflected in this second LTP. There are a number of important points to highlight:
(i) Notwithstanding the pace of change in Merseyside’s economy, the critical review has shown the strategy and policies contained within the first LTP to be robust and to remain relevant. This second LTP therefore illustrates strong continuity of policy adapted where necessary for changing circumstances.
(ii) The Liverpool City Region Development Plan (LCRDP) and Merseyside Economic Strategy (MESAP) support polycentric development. The development of corridors and centres was at the heart of the first LTP, and notwithstanding the progress made over the first LTP, this approach will remain at the centre of the second LTP. (There is further discussion of the LCRDP and MESAP in Section 2.3. The corridors and centres approach is described in Chapter 4).
(iii) The approach of corridors and centres is based on the agreed road hierarchy and a strong commitment to public transport and sustainable modes. This will continue (this is described more fully in Chapter 4).
(iv) The LTP partnership fully endorses the DfT support for smart measures as an integral part of the development of the transport network. Following the extensive study the partnership have invested heavily in the Merseyside TravelWise programme. (This is described more fully in 4.7).
(v) Of most concern on Merseyside at the present time is to ensure that all members of the community have equal opportunity to access job and training opportunities. Merseyside welcomes the opportunities to address these issues in the second LTP and Access Plan.
Despite growing jobs and wealth created there are too many areas of Merseyside with particularly deep rooted deprivation and associated worklessness.
(vi) Merseytravel was involved with the original social exclusion Unit in producing the ‘Making the Link’ report, and was a ‘Centre of Excellence’ for addressing the issue of transport and social exclusion.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 7 (vii) The LTP partnership consider that managing increasing travel demand within a growing economy must be supported by better integration with land use planning and locational choice. It is hoped that an SPD adapted by the Merseyside local authorities can be agreed by March 2006. (This is described in Section 4.2).
Merseyside is developing a powerful GIS based management tool, Strategis, which it is planned to progressively implement from Autumn 2005.
(This is described in Section 10.3)
The Changing Context for the Second LTP
2.1.15 The second LTP will be developed and implemented within a changed regional structure that will involve greater regional decision making and devolved budgets. Largely driven by the Northern Way initiative, this LTP has to take account of a changed geography.
2.1.16 For clarity the following definitions are used in this LTP:
(i) Merseyside – the five local authorities of Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, St Helens and Knowsley with Merseytravel.
(ii) Greater Merseyside – as above but with Halton who have their own LTP. Halton are part of all the Merseyside groups from Chief Executive and leaders down. Halton are included in references to the Merseyside Economic Strategy (MESAP).
(iii) The Liverpool City Region – as above but including West Lancashire, Warrington, Chester and Ellesmere Port, Flintshire and Deeside. This region has produced a City Region Development Plan (CRDP) for input to the Northern Way.
2.1.17 Within the context of the CRDP four LTPs are involved. There has been active co-operation in developing joint supporting statements.
The map below illustrates this new geography.
Get decent map from LCDRP Martin Thorpe
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 8
Map 1 – The Liverpool City Region
2.2 The current framework
2.2.1 Population
The map of population density below shows how the population is distributed across the region. Of the five districts, Liverpool has the highest population, followed by Wirral and Sefton. Merseyside has seen an overall decline in population in recent years. In 1993 the population was 1,427,000 which has declined to 1,364,000 by 2003 (Office of National Statistics [ONS] Transport Statistics 2004).
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 9 Map 2 Population Density
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 10 Table Population – Census 2001
Update this figure from MIS
There is further discussion of population issues in Section 2.3
2.2.2 Employment
Merseyside continues to have higher than average unemployment figures.
2.2.3 Table wards with the highest unemployment in Merseyside
Get figures from MER
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 11 Map 3 Unemployment (Get revised map from SDG)
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 12 2.2.4 Disadvantage
Parts of Liverpool, St Helens and Knowsley fall within the 10% most deprived areas in the country.
Section on Worklessness to be added – take from MER CRDP
There is further discussion of these issues in Section 2.3
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 13
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 14 2.2.5 Car Ownership
(a) Merseyside has low car ownership compared to national figures with 38% of households having no access to a car.
(b) Figure 2.5 shows that the percentage of households with access to one car in Merseyside is however consistent with other English PTE’s (2001 Census). Looking at households without access to a car, outside London, Liverpool is third after Glasgow and Tyneside. Liverpool also has a low proportion of households with two or more cars, at 21%, outside London, again only Glasgow and Tyneside have a lower share than this.
Figure 4 Car Ownership in UK Cities
100% 9 17 90% 19 24 24 25 21 80% 70% 34 42 60% 43 42 Two or more cars 43 43 43 50% One Car 40% No Cars 30% 56 20% 42 37 34 33 32 38 10% 0% West London West Glasgow Liverpool Midlands Tyneside Greater Yorkshire Manchester
(There is further discussion of issues relating to car ownership in Section 2.3 and Chapters 3 and 4).
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 15 Table 3.16 - Car Registration 1999-2003
Table 3.17 - Merseyside Car Registration and Ownership 1991 – 2003
Table 3.23 - Number of Cars Licensed in Merseyside By Title of Keeper
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 16 Table 3.24 - Number of Cars Licensed in Merseyside By Title of Keeper (%)
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 17 Map 5 - Areas of Non Car Ownership on Merseyside
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 18 2.2.6 Journey to Work
Replace this with extract from PION ??? report
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 19 Map 6a
Merseyside as a Destination and an Origin for Travelling to Work 2001
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 20 Map 6b
Liverpool as a Destination for Travelling to Work 2001
There is further discussion of issues relating to car ownership in Section 2.3 and Chapters 3 and 4.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 21 Figure 6a Merseyside as a Destination by Modal Share 1991
Merseyside as a Destination by Modal Share 2001
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 22 Figure 6b Merseyside Distance Travelled To Work 2001 by Workplace (%)
Merseyside Distance Travelled to Work 1991 by residence (%)
Merseyside Distance Travelled to Work 1991 by workplace (%)
Combine these with 81
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 23
Merseyside Distance Travelled to work 1981 by workplace (%)
Figure 6c: Travel to Work by Workplace in Merseyside
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 24 Public Transport Mode Share
Overall Public Transport mode share of travel to work in Merseyside is highest within Liverpool itself at over 25% and declines to the lowest levels to the west of the Wirral and north of St Helens.
Figure 2.9 shows mode share of all journeys from the National Travel Survey (1999-2001 data). At 11.4% share bus use in Liverpool is higher than Manchester and the West Midlands, but lower than other PTEs. Car mode share is comparable to West Yorkshire and the West Midlands, but lower than Greater Manchester.
Get figure 2.9 figures from Merseytravel. Monitor in terms of bus/rail usage. Tracking survey for mode comparisons.
Get MTR figures.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 25 Figure 6(d) - Travel to Work Comparison with other PTE's
100% 90% 80% Ot her 70% Walk/cycle 60% Underground/Light rail 50% Bus 40% Rai l 30% Car 20% 10% 0%
Inner Wes t London Wes t Glasgow Liverpool Midlands Tyneside Greater Yorkshire Manchester
Who uses buses and rail?
Figure 6 (d) extracted from the tracking survey helps to understand the profile of those people currently travelling by bus. Key high bus usage groups include those aged 16-24 and those of retirement age, and those on lower incomes. Some 75% of the population uses the bus at one time or another although this falls to 64% amongst higher income groups.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 26 Map 7 Journey to work by Bus
Bus travel is very high for travel to work in Liverpool City Centre, at over 25%. This gradually decreases to the edge of the city, being just 6-10% in the outer districts.
Bus is an important mode of transport in Merseyside with a relatively good bus network. According to the tracking survey, satisfaction amongst regular users is increasing but occasional users have a lower opinion of services..
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 27 Map 8 Journey to work by car
Car Car travel to work is considerably lower for those living in Liverpool City Centre at under 45% of travel to work trips. All other areas of Merseyside showing higher levels at typically over 65%.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 28 Map 9 Journey to work on foot or by bicycle
The level of Walking and Cycling is clearly linked to the distance people travel to work. Mapping shows that around all the key centres (Liverpool, St Helens, Southport, etc.) levels of walking and cycling are highest, reaching as much as 33%.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 29 Map10 Journey to work by rail
The propensity to travel to work by rail is linked to the location of the rail network. However, certain rail lines have a clearly greater share of travel to work. In particular the lines running from Liverpool north towards Southport and running west to the Wirral, both achieve a high share of 8-12%. In comparison, travel on the lines to the east in locations such as St Helens is far lower at less than 4%.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 30
Parking
Figure 7(a): Average Duration of Stay For City Centre Car Parking
7(b)
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 32 Figure 11 - Terminal Passengers at Liverpool John Lennon Airport 1992-2004
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 33 Figure 12: Annual Freight to and from Liverpool John Lennon Airport 1993-2003
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 34 Figure 14: Throughput at the Port of Liverpool 2002-2003
Figure 15: Foreign and Coastwise Traffic: 1999-2003
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 35 Figure 13: Freight Transport by Road – Goods Moved by Origin of Goods 1993-2003 (Million tonne-kms)
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 36
2.3 The wider policy context
2.3.1 Merseyside has a population of 1.5 million people.
The City Region extends further to include Warrington, Chester, Ellesmere Port and Neston, North Wales and West Lancashire. Its sphere of influence is illustrated by the following drive-time figures from Liverpool city centre:-
(i) 30 minutes – 2.22m people; (ii) 60 minutes – 6.75m people; and (iii) 90 minutes – 11.88m people.
2.3.2 Travel to work patterns highlight some of the economic connections. Liverpool City Centre is the economic centre and provides 217,000 jobs. It imports 70,000 workers from the rest of Merseyside and some 17,000 from outside the wider surrounding economic area – across almost all of the key occupational groups. With 87,600 workers commuting to the city and 40,000 Liverpool residents travelling out of the city to work, Liverpool is a net importer of 48,000 workers.
2.3.3 In terms of the City region Travel to work patterns also illustrate some of the wider economic relationships between the city region and the Greater Manchester and Central Lancashire regions. Primary economic linkages are with Cheshire, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Warrington, West Lancashire and Greater Manchester.
(These were illustrated by Maps 5(a) and 5(b) in Section 2.2)
As noted in 2.1.1 the context for the second Merseyside LTP is changing.
2.3.4 The Context for the Merseyside Local Transport Plan
There are now substantial changes taking place at regional level. The Northern Way Growth Strategy, being led by ODPM, is becoming increasingly important.
2.3.5 To support this strategy, the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is now due for adoption in spring 2007. As part of this, the supporting Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) will be drafted by the autumn of 2005. The Regional Housing Strategy and Regional Economic Strategy are also due for publication in 2005.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 38
2.3.6 The relationship between the RSS and the Northern Way Growth Strategy is crucial and it is essential that the two interlink and are complimentary, with the Liverpool City Region Development Programme being supported by spatial priorities within the North West RSS. It is important to note that the North West RSS is the key to the successful implementation of the Northern Way Growth Strategy and the constituent city regional development programmes.
Map X illustrates these relationships.
2.3.7 The sub-regional RSS policies cover the Liverpool City Region defined by the Northern Way; that is, the six Merseyside authorities, West Lancashire, Ellesmere Port, Chester, Warrington and parts of North Wales. (Map 1 shows the wider City Region).
2.3.8 At the Liverpool City Region level there are therefore a number of emerging linked strategies.
(i) For the Northern Way, the Liverpool City Region Sub-Regional Partnership, produced in January 2005, ‘The Liverpool City Region Contributing to the Northern Way’. This is described as a statement of intent. Following on from that, the Liverpool City Region Sub-Regional Partnership submitted their Liverpool City Region Development Programme (LCRDP) – ‘The Liverpool City Region – Transforming Our Economy’ to the NWDA in May 2005.
(ii) For the RSS, the City Region has produced detailed City Region policies and advice to inform and influence the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) development of the RSS.
(iii) The LCRDP will be integrated with the City Region RSS submission and work being produced for the Merseyside Economic Strategy (MESAP) which is due to be issued by the end of June 2005.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 39
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 40
2.3.9 Continuing work will be required to ensure integration of the various Local Transport Plans within the wider City Region. The need for fit between the RSS submission developed by the Greater Merseyside authorities, and the City Region Development Programme embracing a wider city region will mean that there are transport issues that will need to be taken into account in developing the favoured RSS strategy. A wider City Region taking in Chester and abutting Deeside, both of which have experienced large employment growth and for which further development is already planned, will require transport enhancements to ensure access to employment opportunities from across the wider City Region.
2.3.10 These transport demands will cross LTP boundaries and will require a strategic input both to the RTS and to the proposed devolved decision making involving transport, housing and economic regeneration heads. The same will apply to wider area sites such as Omega in Warrington and Skelmersdale in West Lancashire.
2.3.11 In considering the spatial requirements to realise the ambitions for Merseyside’s economic progress, the sub regional response to the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) has been developed directly in line and symbiotically with the LCRDP. The two submissions are therefore fully aligned and as such can be taken to reflect the transport demands for the City Region.
2.3.12 The RSS submission states that accessibility and connectivity issues are incorporated as essential elements supporting regeneration and inclusivity. In fact, accessibility into the City Region and within it is considered as a primary objective required achieving growth both in terms of economic performance, but also social inclusion in an area where multiple deprivation remains a real challenge. In addition, in considering transport provision and infrastructure, further thought needs to be given to how these spatial priorities can assist in addressing climate change by reducing the need to travel, promoting car free developments and high quality public transport systems in existing accessible, high density urban locations to help support this key policy objective.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 41
2.3.13 The vision for the Liverpool City Region RSS is;
‘To maximise the economic potential of the Liverpool City Region in a way that promotes urban renaissance, social inclusion and is environmentally sustainable. This will involve a true polycentric approach which recognises and promotes the role of Liverpool as the core city and economic driver for its city region, whilst also recognising and utilising the assets and potentials of other locations throughout the city region, including those in rural areas. It will also mean that areas of economic opportunity are sustainably linked to those areas of greatest need.’
2.3.14 In terms of a European perspective, the RSS submission states that the Liverpool City Region is in a prominent position as a gateway to Europe with east-west routes that extend from Ireland through Liverpool and other North West ports and onwards across the Pennines to Europe (the North European Trade Axis – NETA). Transport European Network (TEN) projects covering Merseyside include:
i UK/Ireland/Benelux road axis (completion 2010);
i West Coast Main Line (completion 2007);
i Motorway of the sea of Western Europe (leading from Portugal and Spain via the Atlantic Arc to the North Sea and the Irish Sea) (completed 2010) ; and
i Road/railway axis Hull-Liverpool (completion 2015).
2.3.15 The City Region response to RSS is concerned with the three main policy deficit priorities of Economy, Housing and Coastal areas. There is clearly recognition that transport provision serves these three policy priority areas. In terms of the transports contribution to these three agendas, a number of policy areas have been identified. These include:
i Recognition that accessibility improvements underpin the sub-regional strategy and likely success of the intentions set out in the Liverpool City Region Development Programme.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 42
i Ensure that the link between accessibility and green infrastructure is prioritised to address social inclusion, improve image and promote the high quality environmental assets of the city region.
2.3.16 The Merseyside Economic Strategy and Liverpool City Region Development Plan and The Liverpool City Region Development Plan (LCRDP) states that:
The Liverpool city region has a rich, distinct and diverse asset base providing the key ingredients which will shape its future:
Its sea-board location and role as the gateway for trade and people into the North West, North Wales and North of England, a crucial link in the multi-modal North European Trade Axis, extending from Ireland to the Humber Ports and through to Northern European markets. Key assets include Ports of Liverpool, Liverpool John Lennon Airport, the Mersey Rail network with 80 stations extending to Chester and West Lancashire and several major freight terminals.
2.3.17 The LCRDP also states that:
The vision for the LCRDP is:
‘To regain our status as a premier European city region by 2025, with an internationally competitive economy and cultural offer and outstanding quality of life, and vibrant communities contributing to and sharing in sustainable wealth creation’.
2.3.18 The programme will have a number of over-arching principles. These include:
(i) the priorities for action must include the completion of the investment programme (in infrastructure), and ‘securing the further expansion of the Ports of Liverpool and John Lennon Airport and related infrastructure’.
(ii) The city region’s expanding economy has the pre- conditions for full employment for all of its communities. There is then both the opportunity and the need to build on - and extend the principles of – the Mersey Dee Alliance’s joint work to improve access to jobs in Ellesmere Port, Chester and North Wales for residents in Wirral and the rest of the city region.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 43
Transport and skills are the key ingredients of this menu to improve the workings of the city region’s labour markets.
(The Mersey Dee Alliance is discussed further in Chapter 7).
2.3.19 The LCRDP is founded upon the delivery of Local Strategic Priorities set against Drivers of Change which will lead to a series of clear outcomes to support the development of the city region.
2.3.20 In setting out how the LCRDP will address the strategic priorities in relation to transport, it notes the following:
(i) a well connected city region.
(a) The Liverpool to Hull route is the northern way. Improving transport connections across the Liverpool city region will enhance crucial strategic linkages across the Northern Way and the NETA trade axis. This includes the new Mersey Gateway Bridge (the second river crossing), expansion of Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Port of Liverpool, improved road and rail connections with London and other major cities.
(b) The Mersey Ports are nationally significant. They have a far higher share of global cargoes carried in containers compared to the East Coast Ports. Liverpool is the only Northern Port with major direct ‘deep sea services’. Further investments including the £80m new deep sea terminal at Seaforth, the Cruise Liner facility at the Pier Head and the expansion of the Twelve Quays terminal, will drive the continuing growth of the maritime sector.
(c) Improving access to the Port of Liverpool by rail and road is of vital importance to maintaining the North West’s competitive advantage. Strategic freight routes will need to be strengthened through the expansion of Ditton and Knowsley Rail Freight Terminals and the Knowsley/ St Helens logistics cluster developments. Work is underway with the SRA on the
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 44
reinstatement of the Olive Mount Chord rail link to enhance the efficiency and capacity of rail freight to and from the Port and free up capacity on passenger routes.
(d) Liverpool John Lennon Airport With two thirds of its passengers from outside the city region, the airport has a catchment area of 12 million people within 90 minutes’ driving distance.
In 2005, it will submit a planning application for infrastructure to support an annual passenger throughput of 10 million, including major extensions to the passenger terminal facilities, the identification of land needed for the runway extension and improvements to surface access via a new eastern access road and enhanced public transport links.
(e) The Mersey Gateway – building a bridge to prosperity
The new Mersey Gateway bridge is also of strategic importance to the growth of the Merseyside bio-tech sector, linking Daresbury Research Park with bio-tech and pharmaceutical companies in Speke and the University of Liverpool research centres at MerseyBio, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the Cancer Research Centre. Significant competitive benefits will accrue to the Port of Liverpool, regional distribution centres including Wincanton in Halton and News International and QVC in Knowsley.
(f) Inter Regional Connectivity
Radical improvements are required to rail links between the city centres and airports of Liverpool and Manchester and connectivity with other Northern city regions via the Cross-Pennine route.
Parallel priorities for action include delivering low-cost – though strategically important – improvements for heavy rail access to the Port of Liverpool, such as the £7 million reinstatement of the Olive Mount
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 45
Chord by the strategic Rail Authority (and its successor). A similar priority is the retention of the Halton Rail Curve (linking the Chester-Manchester line with the West Coast Main Line). Electrification of the Bidston-Wrexham line would also dramatically improve connections between the city region and North Wales and improve access to advanced manufacturing/engineering jobs – such as Airbus – on Deeside. [This is discussed further in 4.7.]
(g) Freight Terminals
Ditton in Halton and the former Parkside Colliery in St Helens have been designated by the Regional Development Agency as being capable of meeting the need for strategic inter-modal freight terminals to support the Government’s integrated transport strategy. [This is discussed further in 4.3.5 and Chapter 5.]
(ii) A creative and competitive city region
(a) The Mersey Partnership’s research has led to a consensus that a significant source of competitive advantage for Merseyside in the future will be to become, both in actuality and in perception, a good place for women to participate in the workforce and to establish businesses. Support programmes include the development of safe public transport provision serving womens’ needs.
(iii) A city region of skilled and talented people.
(a) Alongside strong economic performance and continuing growth in jobs, a major challenge for the city region, and in particular its area concentrations of worklessness, is to increase the number of working age adults entering, staying and progressing in the labour market. Whilst the unemployment rate has fallen across the city region, it remains higher than national and regional levels and is particularly high in Liverpool, Knowsley and south Sefton.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 46
This masks the similarly low employment rates in these areas, in Liverpool, the significant major concentrations of worklessness in the city’s inner core and outer estates, where 30 out of 100 working age adults are in jobs, where the city’s Black and Racial Minority Communities have an employment rate of 28%, and were some 50% of residents have skills and qualification levels below the employability threshold.
The new national focus on working age adults in receipt of Incapacity Benefit is therefore welcomed in the city region.
An action priority to create a city region of talented and able people therefore includes:
• Full employment in the city region – will release the human capital trapped in the concentrations of worklessness in the conurbation core through an accelerated process of upskilling and employability supported by improved transport links to jobs. For the future, it will expand the pool of skilled labour in the workforce.
2.3.21 Set out below is a summary of the major transport improvements and priorities that have been included in the RSS and CRDP submissions:
(a) Developing the Port of Liverpool as the International Sea Gateway to the North of England; the Port of Liverpool has the capacity to attract a higher throughput of trade and develop new global markets to benefit the growth of the city region economy and the wider region.
Proposed supporting measures:
i Improvements to road and rail access to the Ports including Olive Mount Chord and the Birkenhead Docks rail freight links.
i Increase the usage of the Ports for freight and passenger transport;
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 47
i Potential to link the wider ‘distribution’ centres (such as Parkside or Ditton Strategic Freight Park); and
i Links to areas outside of the City Region.
(b) Infrastructure Investments to Support the Expansion of Liverpool John Lennon Airport
Proposed supporting measures:
i Extension to terminal facilities. Extension of runway.
i Implementation of the Liverpool John Lennon Airport Masterplan.
i Eastern road access improvements;
i Complementary role to Manchester Airport;
i Public transport access via the new Liverpool South Parkway interchange;
i Role as job creator so accessibility for local community essential;
i Importance of providing high quality public transport links; and between Liverpool and Manchester airports.
(c) The Mersey Gateway will provide a new road bridge crossing of the River Mersey between Runcorn and Widnes to improve and modernise road access to the city region. It will trigger economic benefits of £1.8bn and up to 7,000 jobs and serve the expansion of industry and commerce including Liverpool John Lennon Airport.
(d) Enhanced Public Transport connections including improvements to the West Coast Main Line; Trans-Pennine routes and Lime Street Station and Gateway. Developing our public transport network to help bring people and jobs closer together.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 48
Proposed supporting measures:
i NETA (North European Trade Axis) and also north/south routes;
i Re-opening of infrastructure that will lead to improved freight and passenger connectivity (such as Olive Mount/Halton Curve);
i Improvements to the West Coast Main Line;
i Improvements to links to other City Regions (such as Manchester/Sheffield/Newcastle/Glasgow/E dinburgh/Bristol etc), and to North Wales;
i By ensuring access to opportunities within the City Region particularly to non car users to promote social inclusion;
i New Merseytram Network;
i Implementing the Merseyside Local Transport Plan assisted by the preparation of a Merseyside wide Transport Supplementary Planning Document to better align land use and transport development; and
i A Quality Bus Contract for Merseyside.
Table X illustrates possible Transport interventions in support of the LCRDP programme.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 49
Transport Interventions to Support the Liverpool City Region Development Plan
Drivers of Change Outcomes
Strategic Priorities Skills & Enterprise & Investment & Innovation & Full Quality of Æ Learning Entrepreneurship Infrastructure Knowledge Employment Life & Place
Premier Support for Access to job High The transport Destination CoC/Tourism opportunities quality/reliable network has a i public transport distinct quality that Lime Street is part of the Quality public i regions offer JLA realm i Coach iPassenger Parking facilities iFully Rail Station accessible refurbish transport ment iBus and tram stops iPublic art iSafe and secure
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 50
Drivers of Change Outcomes
Strategic Priorities Skills & Enterprise & Investment & Innovation & Full Quality of Æ Learning Entrepreneurship Infrastructure Knowledge Employment Life & Place
Connected City Access to Creates the right High quality Access to Bus network Easy access to the Region training and business reliable public employment – developed to City Region from education environment – easy transport address ensure easy UK and beyond and to access and move i worklessness - access across easy connections to around Merseytram Joblink the region the local network i Extensions to Control High quality reliable Merseyrail congestion and public transport – i Quality Bus environmental congestion free Network degradation highways Access to iHighways iMersey Ports manage ment Olive Mount iTravelWise iJLA iAir Quality LSP Manage iCity ment Centre/SIA’s Well iMersey maintained Gateway transport assets iPark and Ride
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 51
Drivers of Change Outcomes
Strategic Priorities Skills & Enterprise & Investment & Innovation & Full Quality of Æ Learning Entrepreneurship Infrastructure Knowledge Employment Life & Place
Creative & Access to High quality Access to The right The transport Competitive training and freight network labour pool – business network assists education – integrated environment – business and freight Access to ports ticketing transport easy to access and ensures good and SIA’s initiatives network and move access to labour around pool
Talented & Able People
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 52
Drivers of Change Outcomes
Strategic Priorities Skills & Enterprise & Investment & Innovation & Full Quality of Æ Learning Entrepreneurship Infrastructure Knowledge Employment Life & Place
Sustainable Access to Public realm Access to Safer Roads Safe and Communities training and employment environmentally Safe roads/ Good air quality education sustainable pedestrian Joint action on An inclusive transport environment worklessness – community ticketing/ Inclusive Support for information A healthy community with cycling initiatives community good access to Information services and Public rights of Provision opportunities way Better integration Healthier of land use and community transport Integration with HMRI
Governance & Well maintained Responsive to Delivery and managed public/ resources and passenger assets demands Best use of existing resources
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 53
2.3.23 Beyond the RSS submission, the importance of transport is recognised across all fields.
(i) In terms of tourism, the Merseyside Destination Management Plan, 2005-2008, states that particularly important developments are:
(a) Transport from Gateways (particularly from Liverpool JL Airport) to visitor attraction hubs.
(b) Attractiveness of arrival points, eg bus and rail stations, car parks with improved orientation and signage.
(c) Road access to Liverpool from end of M62, and to Southport from M57 and M58.
(d) Public realm in key tourism hubs including maintenance regimes, pavement cleanliness and repair, street furniture, planting and signage.
(ii) The Merseyside Economic Review (MER) has highlighted the continuing disparity between Merseyside’s growing economy and persistent high levels of social disadvantage as measured by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation. Map 2 illustrates this whilst Map 3 shows the geographic differences in car ownership. This wider interpretation of regional priorities is also covered in guidelines for RSS in terms of links to issues such as health. They also highlight the importance of increasing skills and education levels. The MER states that ‘worklessness and multiple deprivation remain a challenge’.
(iii) The North West Annual Statement of Productivity Priorities statement is directly related to the North West Annual Statement of Learning and Skills Priorities which was published in December 2004. It states that one of its top ten priorities is to ‘influence transport and infrastructure planning to meet business objectives’.
(iv) Poor education and skills levels go hand in hand with unemployment and low income and poor housing. The MER recognises the significant levels of low demand housing is an issue that needs to be addressed, ‘vibrant and attractive urban
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 54
neighbourhoods will need to be created to ensure that outflows of population are minimised and new residents are to be attracted to the sub-region.’
(v) Within Merseyside this challenge is being met by the New Heartlands Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI).
(This was discussed in Section 3.1)
(vi) Low paid work or unemployment will in turn lead to poor health and a greater demand on health services. This relationship is recognised by the Merseyside and Cheshire Strategic Health Authority and the Primary Care Trusts, as part of the Government Choosing Health White Paper. In particular the needs for integration of health and transport are specifically referred to in terms of promoting more active childrens travel and physical activity.
(vii) Within the North West, these links are reflected in ‘Investment for Health – A plan for North West England 2003’. One of the particular plan’s objectives is:
‘To develop a sustainable and integrated transport infrastructure …in the region which… has the greatest possible potential to improve public health and reduce inequalities.’
(viii) To achieve this it sets out a range of activities and action including measures to ensure access to health care, reduce accidents, address environmental problems and increase physical activity.
(ix) The importance of these close interlinkages is also recognised by the Merseyside Local Authorities Strategic Agenda. In addition the size of the health economy, counted across indicators such as numbers of employees and size of the capital programme mean that it is a critical player in employment opportunities.
(x) Merseyside is an existing Centre of Excellence for linking transport provision and social exclusion and transport will clearly have a key continuing role in ensuring an inclusive community.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 55
(xi) The polarisation of employment opportunities between highly skilled/highly paid and lower skilled, lower paid recognised in emerging work for New Heartlands will have implications for travel patterns across the wider city region, which linked with changing housing patterns could lead to longer distance car commuting allied with increasing demands for travel opportunities for non car owners seeking work.
The European Perspective
(i) The European Commission White Paper on Transport ‘European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide’ covers a similar time period to the second LTP. The major objectives of the policy:
i Decoupling transport growth from economic growth;
i Modal shift away from road by promoting other modes and intermodality;
i Preventing congestion through tackling bottlenecks, intermodality and modal shift;
i Measures to facilitate transport users paying the true costs of their transport use;
i Commitment to delivering high- quality public transport in urban areas through a system of public service requirements.
(ii) Merseyside’s second LTP responds to these policy objectives and supports the development of TEN’s within Merseyside, including improving intermodial access to the Merseyside Ports.
(iii) The second LTP responds to the EU Road Safety Action Programme, covering the period up to 2010. The overall target is to half the number of road deaths in EU. Relevant actions in EU programme include:
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 56
i Measures on improving infrastructure, such as better signposting of blackspots;
i Making vehicles safer, by promoting new technologies, impact protection and safety standards for car fronts; and
i Improving driver behaviour on speeding, drink driving and seatbelt use.
(iv) Measures that are of relevance to the LTP under the CAFÉ (Clean Air for Europe Programme) include:
i Control of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds;
i Management of urban transport;
i Low emissions zones and limiting human exposure to certain pollutants;
i Green procurement of public transport fleets; and
i Furthering the polluter-pays principle on air pollution.
(v) Energy efficiency. The Commission’s action plan to improve energy efficiency in the EU provides for the improvement of energy efficiency by an additional 1% a year. The Commmission’s white paper on renewable sources of energy recommends an indicative target of 12% of energy from renewable sources in gross internal consumption in the EU by 2010. The Commission considers that improving energy use in the transport sector, including the diversification of fuels, where new developing energy sources such as hydrogen and renewable energy sources can play a role, is extremely important in
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 57
efforts to reduce the negative effects of transport on the environment.
(vi) EU Environment and Health Action Plan aims to deal with illnesses and diseases caused by environmental pollution, including transport borne pollution. This supports the LTP objective of:
i Manage demand to support a healthier community by ensuring transport does not impair quality of life.
i Protect and enhances the environment including the safety and security of the road users.
(vii) There is considerable scope to develop these links and support one of the key aims of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP): to achieve greater balance and polycentricity in Europe as a whole. The ESDP spatial development principles include:
i Promotion of integrated transport and communication concepts which support the polycentric development of the EU territory as a whole.
Table X summarises Transport across the wider ?…policy field.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 58
Local Transport Plan for Merseyside Setting Transport in its Wider Planning and Policy Context
Transport Context Consistency Matrix
The vision for the second Local Transport Plan for Merseyside is:
'a fully integrated safe transport network for Merseyside which supports economic life and ensures good access to employment, health, education and other opportunities, for all, and which is operated to the highest standards to protect health and the environment and ensure quality of life'.
The scoring system used for the policy consistency matrices is based on a range from double plus (33) through to double cross (22) score. The scoring is as objective as possible and aims to demonstrate policy consistency and fit between the four LTP2 objectives and the relevant policy objectives from the key regional and city-region policy documents. This approach is in line with the need to set transport in a wider context and to ensure that local transport policies and programmes are consistent with regional economic and spatial strategies, and the local vision for the area.
The following information will be updated and syncronised with the currently evolving and updated sub-regional (MESAP, New Heartlands Second Submission) and regional policies (RSS/RTS, RES, RHS, NWGS) as and when appropriate.
Regional Strategies
Moving Forward The Northern Way: Action Plan 2005
Vision ‘Establish the North of England as an area of exceptional opportunity combining a world-class economy with a superb quality of life’
LTP2 0bjectives Provide the right Provide access for all Manage demand to support a Protect and enhances the Infrastructure to support to ensure an inclusive healthier community by ensuring environment including the Connectivity Investment Priorities economic growth and community transport does not impair quality safety and security of the regeneration of life road users A Northern Airports Priorities Plan and improve 33 33 3 3 surface access to key northern airports Improve access to the North’s Sea Ports 33 3 33 3 Create premier transit systems in each city region 33 33 33 33 and stronger linkages between city regions
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 59
Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS 13) 2003
Vision ‘To promote sustainable patterns of spatial development and physical change’.
Provide the right Provide access for Manage demand to support a Protect and enhances the Infrastructure to support all to ensure an healthier community by environment including the LTP2 Objectives economic growth and inclusive community ensuring transport does not safety and security of the RSS Objectives regeneration impair quality of life road users To achieve greater economic competitiveness and 33 33 3 3 growth, with associated social progress To secure an urban renaissance in the cities and towns 33 3 33 3 of the North West To ensure the sensitive and integrated development and 3 3 3 3 management of the coastal zone, and secure the revival the revival of coastal resort towns and other coastal settlements To sustain and revive the Region’s rural communities 3 33 3 3 and the rural economy To ensure active management of the Region’s 0 0 3 33 environmental and cultural assets To secure a better image for the Region and high 0 0 33 33 environmental and design quality To create an accessible region, with an efficient and 33 33 33 3 fully integrated transport system RTS Priorities Enhancement of Trans-European Networks (TENs) 33 3 0 3 Effective multi-modal solutions to the conveyance of 33 33 3 33 goods, people and services, especially at major hubs Effectively planned and significantly more efficient 33 3 0 33 transport interchanges Attractive gateways and transport corridors 33 0 33 33 Scope for effective use of new technology to enhance 33 0 0 0 travel High-quality public transport in urban and rural areas 33 33 3 0 A safe and pleasant environment complementary to the 3 3 33 33 need to improve the Region’s image and encourage more use of environmentally-friendly modes of transport (e.g. walking, cycling, and canals)
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 60
LTP2 Objectives Provide the right Provide access for all to Manage demand to Protect and enhances the Draft RTS Objectives Infrastructure to support ensure an inclusive support a healthier environment including the economic growth and community community by ensuring safety and security of the regeneration transport does not impair road users quality of life To improve connectivity by ensuring that the Region’s 33 33 3 33 principal North-South and East-West transport corridors retain their strategic function through the introduction of an integrated range of measures to improve journey time reliability. To support sustainable communities in the Liverpool, 33 33 33 33 Manchester and Central Lancashire City Regions through the development of effective, integrated public transport networks within, to and between City Regions. To underpin future growth by supporting the roles of 33 33 3 3 Manchester Airport as the North of England’s key international gateway and Liverpool John Lennon Airport as complementary to Manchester through improved surface access, in particular, by public transport. To underpin future growth by supporting the role of the 33 33 3 3 Port of Liverpool as the UK’s key Atlantic gateway and the North West’s premier seaport and the roles of the major ports of Fleetwood and Heysham as gateways for Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Irish Republic through improved land-side surface access. To help maintain viability and support greater 33 0 33 33 opportunities for the transportation of freight on water by improving the land-side accessibility of the Manchester Ship Canal and other navigable waterways. To support the regeneration of Blackpool, Morecambe 33 33 33 33 and Southport through improved accessibility to and within the Coastal Zone, especially by more sustainable modes of transport. To support economic development and regeneration in 0 0 0 0 the peripheral sub-region of Furness and West Cumbria by securing the safe, reliable and effective operation of
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 61
links to the Region’s principal North-South transport corridor to enhance accessibility. To facilitate rural renaissance and social inclusion 3 33 33 33 through enhanced accessibility by developing integrated public transport networks based on hubs at key service centres. To support rural regeneration through the 33 33 33 33 encouragement of sustainable tourism and recreational activity by developing a network of regional walking and cycling routes within and between the Coastal Zone, the rural uplands and lowlands and the City Regions.
Regional Economic Strategy 2003
Vision ‘To transform England’s NorthWest through sustainable economic development’.
LTP2 Objectives Provide the right Infrastructure to Provide access for all to Manage demand to support a RES Objectives support economic growth and ensure an inclusive community by ensuring transp regeneration community not impair quality of life Exploit the growth potential of business sectors 3 0 0 Improve the competitiveness and productivity of business 3 0 0 Develop and exploit the region’s knowledge base 3 0 0 Deliver urban renaissance 33 33 33 Deliver rural renaissance 3 33 33 Secure economic inclusion 33 33 3 Develop and maintain a healthy labour market 3 33 3 Develop the strategic transport, communications and economic 33 33 3 Infrastructure Ensure the availability of a balanced portfolio of employment sites 33 3 3 Develop and market the region’s image 3 3 3
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 62
North West Regional Housing Strategy 2003
Vision ‘A region working together to ensure that every part of the North West offers everyone a choice of good quality housing in successful, secure and sustainable communities’.
LTP 2 Objectives Provide the right Provide access for all Manage demand to support a Protect and enhances the Infrastructure to to healthier environment including the RHS Objectives support economic growth ensure an inclusive community by ensuring safety and and community transport does security of the road users regeneration not impair quality of life Involves people and communities in planning their 0 3 3 3 futures Invests in sustainable neighbourhoods 3 33 33 33 Provides a range of high quality properties for sale 0 0 0 0 and rent Supports the development of mixed communities 3 33 3 3 Rejuvenates our urban areas so they are the first 33 33 33 33 choice for all kinds of households Promotes sustainable rural communities 3 33 3 33 Replaces obsolete housing in a planned and 0 0 0 0 balanced way
Sub-Regional Strategies
The Liverpool City Region – Regional Spatial Strategy 2005
Vision ‘To maximise the economic potential of the Liverpool City Region in a way that promotes urban renaissance, social inclusion and is environmentally sustainable. This will involve a true polycentric approach which recognises and promotes the role of Liverpool as the core city and economic driver for its city region, whilst also recognising and utilising the assets and potentials of other locations throughout the city region, including those in rural areas. It will also mean that areas of economic opportunity are sustainably linked to those areas of greatest need’.
LTP2 Objectives Provide the right Provide access for all Manage demand to support a Protect and enhances the LCR - RSS Infrastructure to to healthier environment including the support economic growth ensure an inclusive community by ensuring safety and and community transport does security of the road users regeneration not impair quality of life Recognition that accessibility improvements 33 33 33 33
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 63
underpin the sub-regional strategy and likely success of the intentions set out in the Liverpool City Region Development Programme Ensure that the link between accessibility and green 33 33 33 33 infrastructure is prioritised to address social inclusion, improve image and promote the high quality environmental assets of the city region The need to build on the potential of Liverpool as a 33 33 3 3 core city and economic driver within its City Region Recognise the polycentric nature of the City Region 33 33 3 3 and the role of centres outside of the core city Maximise the economic contribution of Liverpool City 33 33 33 33 Centre with high-quality commercial sites and premises, an expanded modern retail core, a vibrant cultural, leisure and living offer and high-quality buildings and spaces Harness the strength of the universities by 3 3 3 3 translating high-level knowledge into market-leading economic applications, using local research to attract international business and retaining increasing numbers of graduates developing careers in the sub- region Develop clusters of market-leading businesses 3 3 0 0 seeking competitive advantages through locating near similar businesses, but also a recognition that sector development is a programme that stimulates enterprise and growth beyond the physically close location of businesses Maximise the contribution that the City Region’s 33 33 33 33 unique tourism and leisure offer can make to regeneration, in particular, Liverpool’s status as 2008 European Capital of Culture and Chester as an international heritage destination Support the sustainable expansion of Liverpool John 33 3 33 0 Lennon Airport, which enhances accessibility into the City Region via extended air links and thus harness the contribution of the Airport to economic growth and renaissance Improve rail services to London and Manchester and 33 33 0 3
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 64
re-establish rail links to support the NETA corridor, to other core cities e.g. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Cardiff, Birmingham, Bristol, Southampton, Plymouth and improve links to other parts of the region Transform the housing offer within the sub-region, 33 33 33 33 involving levels of clearance and net new building within parts of the sub-region, which have not been seen for more than a generation, and which will: promote population stabilisation across the city region, with Liverpool aspiring for growth; provide a quality and diverse choice of housing, suitable to meet the needs and aspirations of different sectors of the housing market; and support regeneration and economic success Ensure that housing is provided in locations 33 33 33 33 characterised by high environmental quality with access to services and facilities, transport, and education, recognising the importance of urban density for sustainable neighbourhoods Maximise the contribution that the rural areas can 3 33 33 33 make to the economic, social and environmental capital of the City Region Within the coastal zone, the natural environment will 33 33 33 33 be safeguarded, enhanced and matched by a built environment of the highest quality, a vibrant maritime economy and world-class tourism and recreational facilities
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 65
The Liverpool City Region Development Programme - Transforming Our Economy 2005
Vision ‘To regain our status as a premier European city region by 2025, with an internationally competitive economy and cultural offer and outstanding quality of life, and vibrant communities contributing to and sharing in sustainable wealth creation’.
LTP Objectives Provide the right Provide access for all Manage demand to support a Protect and enhances the LCRDP Infrastructure to to healthier community by environment including the support economic growth ensure an inclusive ensuring transport does not safety and and community impair quality of life security of the road users regeneration The city region as a premier destination centre with 33 0 3 33 an exceptional critical mass of cultural, heritage, leisure and sports attractions A well connected city region – the sea and air 33 33 3 3 gateway to the North West, connecting North America, Ireland and Northern Europe and serving international, national and regional markets, investors and visitors A creative and competitive city region, with a world 33 33 33 33 class science, innovation and R&D base, a 21st century business environment, and employment and productivity levels on a par with the UK A City Region of talented and able people 0 3 3 3 A city region of sustainable neighbourhoods and 33 33 33 33 communities
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 66
An Action Plan for the City Region 2002-2005
Vision ‘A world class city region that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit’.
LTP Objectives Provide the right Provide access for all Manage demand to support a Protect and enhances the APCR Infrastructure to to healthier community by environment including the support economic growth ensure an inclusive ensuring transport does not safety and and community impair quality of life security of the road users regeneration Widespread increase in competitiveness of existing 3 33 3 3 business Exploit the knowledge base 3 33 0 0 Attract and encourage new investment 3 3 0 0 Create and encourage an entrepreneurial culture 0 3 0 3 Raise educational standards and develop a culture 0 33 3 3 of lifelong learning Increase the employability of all residents not in 3 33 3 3 work Develop an employment rich economy 3 33 0 0 Develop the Regional Centre as a magnet to attract 33 33 33 33 people and business to the city region Promote areas of strategic opportunities and 33 3 33 33 develop a premier image for the city region Maximise external linkages 33 33 33 33
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 67
Merseyside Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder 2004
Vision ‘Stabilise the NewHeartlands area with a diverse range of tenures, house values and household income groups. Every household will have access to a home of a high standard, in neighbourhoods with high quality physical environments which are provided with a range of employment opportunities and good quality health, education and other services’
LTP Objectives Provide the right Provide access for all Manage demand to support a Protect and enhances the MHMRP Infrastructure to to healthier community by environment including the support economic growth ensure an inclusive ensuring transport does not safety and and community impair quality of life security of the road users regeneration To create conditions for the revival of housing 33 33 33 33 markets in the New Heartlands area To create attractive and sustainable urban 33 33 33 33 neighborhoods through the delivery of a more balanced mix of housing, with values and types to meet the needs of the existing population and which help attract new residents To build sustainable communities, ensure 33 33 33 33 community cohesion and safeguard investment through the provision of quality public services and through the development of supporting infrastructure To contribute to the competitiveness and prosperity 33 33 33 33 of the wider Merseyside conurbation and the North West region.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 68
Fit with Current Regional Strategies
David – to follow.
2.3.24 There are active working arrangements with agencies such as Jobcentreplus, Primary Care Trusts and Learning and Skills Council. There is extensive engagement with the five Local strategic Partnerships, who have identified in their current planned their transport priorities. It is hoped that the key agencies will have an important role to play in developing agreed Access Plans, in particular. Some difficulty is being experience because of the different LSP structures or extensive reorganisation within Jobcentreplus for example.
2.3.25 From these, and extensive public consultation so far undertaken, there are two important conclusions.
(a) Congestion is seen as growing but is not yet considered a major problem.
(b) Access to jobs is the major priority.
2.3.26 Reflecting this, there were discussions at the last Members workshops concerning congestion charging, and consideration of such options is regarded as a longer term option given public opinion and the relative lack of congestion.
• Improvements to road and rail access to the Ports including Olive Mount curve and the Birkenhead Docks rail link; • Increase the usage of the Ports for freight and passenger transport; • Potential to link to wider ‘distribution’ centres (such as Parkside or Ditton Strategic Freight Park); and • Links to areas outside of the City-Region.
2.4 Key Messages from Stakeholders
2.4.1 In November 2004 the Second Local transport Plan for Merseyside “Key Issues Paper” was circulated, initially to an extended family of stakeholders through the Merseyside Integrated Transport Forum. Following feedback, the paper was circulated more widely in December and January 2005, with the final cut-off date for responses being set at 25 March 2005.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 69
2.4.2 60,000 leaflets were printed for distribution in public locations such as libraries, travel centres and information points. In addition, the questionnaire was also made available online as an interactive form via the LTP website.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 70
Table – Summary of Consultation and Requirements
Views and issues where there Areas showing public views was broad agreement amongst on future transport needs external stakeholders and erquirements • Congestion is already an • LTP had a strong focus on issue and will become an Liverpool city centre but increasing problem in should also focus on Merseyside. regeneration of wider areas outside the city centre. • Public Transport should be • Congestion – may push favoured over car use. people onto the public transport network. • Much stronger linkages were • Port Activity at Liverpool and necessary with land use Wirral – increasing HGV planning. congestion.
• Demand management has an • Economic growth – accepting important part to play that increasing reliance on (especially parking charges). the car is not sustainable.
• Greater levels of bus priority • Tourism – increasing visitor were vital as part of “making pressure, coach parking. best use of existing road space” and securing modal shift. • The wider travel to work area • New journey patterns e.g. should be covered by LTP2. Longer travel to work, city housing development, growth hotspot of Warrington, inter- regional travel. • Significant support to a view • New Mersey Crossing that overmuch priority is important. being given to local trip making as opposed to longer distance commuter trips. • To improve strategic • Public Transport Safety – for transport links to and from women specifically. Merseyside. • Merseyside was in a “window • Liverpool John Lennon of opportunity” with regard to Airport. tackling congestion and modal choice. • TravelWise and associated • Liverpool City Centre car work were important for LTP2 parking was important in light (some comments on of redevelopment. improving targeting of resources and monitoring of achievements), but also an understanding that they couldn’t replace the need for capital investment.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 71
2.4.3 There are active working arrangements with agencies such as Jobcentreplus, Primary Care Trusts and Learning Skills Council. There is extensive engagement with the five Local Strategic Partnerships, who have identified in their current plan their transport priorities. It is hoped that the key agencies will have an important role to play in developing agreed Access Plans, in particular. Some difficulty is being experienced because of the different LSP structures or extensive reorganisation within Jobcentreplus for example.
2.4.4 From these, and extensive public consultation so far undertaken, there are two important conclusions.
(a) Congestion is seen as growing but is not yet considered a major problem.
(b) Access to jobs is the major priority.
2.4.5 Reflecting this, there were discussions at the last Members workshops concerning congestion charging, and consideration of such options is regarded as a longer term option given public opinion and the relative lack of congestion.
i Improvements to road and rail access to the Ports including Olive Mount curve and the Birkenhead Docks rail link;
i Increase the usage of the Ports for freight and passenger transport;
i Potential to link to wider ‘distribution’ centres (such as Parkside or Ditton Strategic Freight Park); and
i Links to areas outside of the City Region.
2.5 Local Targets
2.5.1 The role of the Merseyside LTP as a key enabler to the wider strategies relating to:-
(i) the City Region Development Plan. (ii) the Merseyside Economic Strategy; and (iii) the regional ‘family’ of strategies
cannot be over-estimated. IN recognition of this, the LTP partnership was set the following local Performance Indicators.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 72
[Note – a full explanation of the complete set of mandatory and local indicators is provided in Chapter 11.]
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 73
Figure 16 – Local Performance Indicators
Shared priority/Local Priority Area No. Indicator Notes Target/ Monitor Life Local Quality Quality Priority Better Air Quality of Congestion Accessibility Safer Roads Congestion group led indicators
1 Sustainable transport as the final mode for air T 3 3 3 3 passengers
2 HGV journey times on designated freight routes T 3 3
3 Limit current number of car parking spaces T 3 3 3 available in Liverpool City Centre
4 % of network below threshold speeds during Further investigation peak periods of data quality M(T) 3 3 3 needed to determine feasibility of target 5 Extent of peak spreading (proportion of time when average speeds below a certain M 3 3 3 threshold of speed)
6 Roadworks coverage and impacts BV 100 Number of days of temporary M 3 3 traffic controls on traffic sensitive roads per km of traffic sensitive road 7 No. of people using Park and Ride T 3 3
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 74
Shared priority/Local Priority Area No. Indicator Notes Target/ Monitor Life Local Quality Quality Priority Better Air Quality of Congestion Accessibility Safer Roads Accessibility group led indicators
8 Number % of rural households within 800m or LTP1 mandatory T 3 3 3 13 minutes of an hourly or better bus service indicator
9 Number of rail stations upgraded to meet present standards for (a) facilities and access T/T 3 3 (b) security
10 BV165 (accessibility of pedestrian crossings) T 3 3
11 Bus based physical access Methodology dvp. Req. % total bus network served (by vehicle T?/T 3 3 3 mile) by (a) fully accessible low floor vehicles; (b) infrastructure 12 Affordability Cost of (a) average bus M 3 3 3 3 3 fare/mile (b) car cost index 13 Accessibility – Economic impact Accessibility of unemployed T 3 3 residents into regeneration area
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 75
Shared priority/Local Priority Area No. Indicator Notes Target/ Monitor Life Local Quality Quality Priority Better Air Quality of Congestion Accessibility Safer Roads 14 Accessibility – Economic education % of 16-19 year olds within 30 and 60 minutes T 3 3 3 establishment by walking/cycle/bus/ train 15 Crime/fear of crime on and around public (a) Number of broken transport window incidents recorded on public transport; M/M 3 3 3 (b) Proportion of people who are discouraged from PT use at night Quality Air/Life group led indicators
16 Estimated transport related emissions M 3 (tonnes/year) of CO, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter
17 Vehicle mileage in the AQMA or area of exceedence T T 3
18 Environmental Standard of Bus Fleet T 3
19 Physical Activity Indicator North West and Liverpool Public M 3 3 3 3 Health Indicator
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 76
Shared priority/Local Priority Area No. Indicator Notes Target/ Monitor Life Local Quality Quality Priority Better Air Quality of Congestion Accessibility Safer Roads Other 20 Modal Share Indicators Ref: NTS data availability and DfT T? 3 3 survey pilots 21 Economic Indicator (a) GVA per head (b) Worklessness M 3 22 Percentage of new developments meeting Subject to adoption of minimum standards for all transport modes as draft SPD and data 3 3 3 3 3 defined by SPD capture development T? 23 Street Lighting Condition Based on former T BVPI 3 3 24 Walking Indicator Source: Boosted Modal T 3 3 3 share/Countywide
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 77
3. The Challenges and Opportunities for the second LTP
3.1 The changing landscape
Likely Demographic and Travel Behaviour Change in the Future
(a) Population projections to 2011 by District from the ONS show a continued decline in population of Merseyside, albeit at a slower rate than in recent years. Across Merseyside, St. Helens is projected to lose the highest number of people from 2003-2011, some 4,400, (a 2.5% decline). Liverpool is projected to lose almost as many people at, although this is a lesser share of the current population, a net loss of 1.0%. The Wirral sees a growth in population from 2003 to 2011 of 1,400, a rise of 0.4%.
(b) Looking at the change in age profile, common themes include a drop in the proportion of people aged 0-14 and an increase in share of people aged 50-69 across all districts. Sefton and Knowsley shows the highest decrease in the youngest age band at a drop in share of 2.2%, while Knowsley shows the highest increase in share of the 50-69 age band at 2.4%.
(c) As with most places, the population of Merseyside is ageing. In St Helens and the Wirral, 40% of the population will be over 50 by 2011. Liverpool has a significantly younger population than other districts, which it will maintain, particularly a much larger proportion of 15-29 year olds.
3.2 Residential Development
The table below indicates approximate levels of residential development on a district level. These figures have been calculated from district council planning sources.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 88
Table 2.5 Residential Developments by District as at April 2005
Under Planning % of current District Total construction permission stock Knowsley 1,317 2,871 4,188 6.9% Liverpool 4,607 4,489 9,096 4.8% Sefton 814 556 1,370 1.2% St. Helens 1,741 640 2,381 3.3% Wirral 1,937 745 2,682 2.0%
The city's housing market is significantly unbalanced and is undergoing substantial restructuring over the next 20 years. It is felt that restructuring the local housing markets will make a major contribution to stabilising the city's population in future years. In this way, the housing strategy will assist economic growth and Liverpool's resurgence as a premier European city.
Through redevelopment, refurbishment and intensive neighbourhood management, the Housing Management Renewal Initiative (HMRI) aims to help local communities to live in decent, desirable homes, have access to job opportunities, better transport facilities and more attractive, healthier living environments.
The HMRI boundary covers a large area from Dingle in the south around Sefton Park, through to Wavertree and up north towards Anfield, and to the docks adjoining Sefton Borough Council. In order to target resources, four areas of opportunity - called "Areas of Intervention" - have been identified within the HMRI area.
Above three paragraphs need changing
3.3 Planned Key Developments
The Table below sets out some known major local developments that will have an impact on transport demand. 2006 - Open Golf – Hoylake 2007 - City 800th Birthday - Opening of new Anfield 2008 - Capital of Culture - Open Golf – Birkdale - Paradise Street Development Opens - Kings Dock Opens 2009 - Deep Water Terminal at Seaforth opens 2010 - New Airport Terminal 2013 - New Royal and Alder Hospitals open
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 89
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 90
The Table below sets out an estimate by year of the additional jobs that are expected to be created by key projects or initiatives in Liverpool.
Additional employment impact of key projects or initiatives Project/initiative 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 European Year of Culture (excluding one-off - - - - 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 impact of the Year of Culture) Creative industries (including Science Park, 331 827 1,654 2,481 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 3,308 Digital Technology Campus, National Biomanufacturing Centre, JMU expansion of services and Wavertree Technology Park extension Paradise Street - - - - 1,665 1,665 1,665 1,665 1,665 1,665 1,665 1,665 Anfield Stadium - - - - 356 356 356 356 356 356 356 356 Liverpool Waterfront (including Kings Dock, - - 494 1,851 2,468 2,468 2,468 2,468 2,468 2,468 2,468 2,468 Cruise Liner Terminal, Mersey Ferry Terminal and Canal Link) Liverpool Airport - - - - 492 492 492 492 492 492 492 492 Construction 1,988 2,646 3,313 3,979 ------Total 2,318 3,473 5,460 8,311 9,188 9,188 9,188 9,188 9,188 9,188 9,188 9,188
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 92
The major physical developments are planned at the City Centre, John Lennon Airport and the Seaforth Docks of the Mersey Ports. These three are all highlighted as key economic drivers for the region.
Assessments of potential LTP requirements is ongoing, but some early indications are:-
3.4 Growth of Liverpool John Lennon Airport
Year Passengers
2006 6.3m 2008 7.95m 2011 8.85m
Current number of jobs 2000.
3.5 The Mersey Ports
Predicted increases in HGV movements (24 hour average weekday) as a result of Seaforth Triangle Terminal operation
Approach Route A565 (N) A5036 A565 (S) A5058 A565 Scenario Crosby Princess Rimrose Balliol Derby Regent Road Way Road Road Road Road Strand Rd Gate + 35 + 908 + 317 + 177 + 122 + 212 Closed
A final assessment of the daily patterns of vehicle movement was also made as part of the scooping assessment. This showed that on an hourly basis, the peak hour for the container terminal was between 16:00 and 17:00 when a maximum additional 77 two-way HGV movements would be felt on Princess Way, and 18 additional HGVs would be experienced along Regent Road
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 94
Map 5 shows the key development sites
3.5 City Centre - Future Forecasts
3.5.1 City Centre – Future Forecasts
• In 2015, Liverpool is expected to be in the top 20 European city region destinations with an annual visitor spend of £1.8 billion, supporting 30,000 jobs.
• PSDA expected to create in excess of 4,500 new jobs.
• Impact of Capital of Culture has been estimated at creating some 13,500 jobs in creative and tourism sectors, attracting in excess of 11 million visits to Liverpool in 2008and a visitor spend of some £550m in 2008.
• Gross value added within the City is forecast to increase by £1.6 billion (2000 prices), or 24%, between 2005 and 2015, reach £8.4 billion by the end of the ten-year period.
• Between 2005 and 2015 it is expected that the business stock will rise from around 15,370 in 2005 to 15,480 in 2015 – an increase of 110 units.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 95
• International Labour Organisation unemployment is forecast to fall to 5,300 by 2015, which represents a 52% reduction over the ten-year period.
• The overall level of employment within Liverpool between 2005 and 2015 is forecast to grow by almost 2,000 jobs, resulting in a total of 246,000 at the end of the ten-year period. This is some 6% higher than the base scenario
3.5.2 New Employment Sites
The sites in Figure 2.10 will provide new employment, residential properties and retail locations. A summary of employment at these key sites is detailed below:
Table New Developments in Merseyside
Development name Expected employment Speke Halewood 3,250 Wirral Waterfront 2,700 Liverpool City Centre 2,600 Eastern Approaches 1,800 Approach A580 1,400 Atlantic Gateway 1,400 St Helens 1,200 New Anfield* 1,000 Old Boston – St Helens* 900 Huyton Prescot 600 Southport Commerce Park* 180
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 96
Map New Employment Sites
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 97
A broad analysis shows the potential rise in trip making. (Above table as chart, plus trend analysis)
Car Ownership Data and Forecasts
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20152016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Merseyside Licensed Vehicle Records
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS Observed DfT Traffic Levels in Merseyside 17.06.05 NTEM projection of Car ownership in Merseyside 98 NTEM projection of Traffic levels Linear projection of 1993 - 2003 trend in DfT traffic levels
Analysis of Merseyside’s GVA illustrates the scale of economic recovery needed to bring the local economy up to average standards elsewhere. This in turn will have potentially large effects on trip making.
GVA per Head comparison
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000 GVA (£) per head - current prices - head current GVA (£) per
4000
2000
0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
UNITED KINGDOM Greater Manchester Merseyside West Yorkshire West Midlands
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 99
4. The Integrated Transport Network.
4.1 Corridors and Centres
4.1.1 The first LTP was based around the framework of Corridors and Centres. Map X illustrates this. This approach is confirmed by the LCRDP which recognises Merseyside and the wider City Region as polycentric, and map 7 illustrated the links provided by the local rail network between the major centres.
4.1.2 There has been substantial investment in Merseyside’s Corridors and Centres over the first LTP including work at St Helens, Huyton and Bootle. It is anticipated that the development of the public transport network will concentrate on the development of specific routes within the defined priority corridors.
(This is described in greater detail in 4.4)
4.1.3 However, the priorities already outlined in this Plan ?… that there will be an approach to ensuring that the identified economic growth areas are targeted for appropriate investment and development within the road hierarchy and public transport corridors will provide the framework for action.
(See section 4.3.1 and 4.4 for more detail).
4.2 Land Use
Developing Merseyside Supplementary Planning Document for Transport
4.2.1 The aim of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is to ensure that sustainable transport issues receive greater significance as planning considerations in the consideration of relevant applications. It also seeks to secure a consistent approach across Merseyside, by, for example, ensuring that new housing developments adequately cater for and support new bus routes, subsidised bus services where necessary, incorporate new cycle routes and parking facilities and cater for pedestrians. A need to clarify the role and scope of Travel Plans was also identified at an early stage, as the quality of many of the travel plans submitted by developers has been poor to date
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 88
4.2.2 The intention is that each Local Planning Authority (LPA) would adopt the Merseyside SPD separately, given that no statutory sub-regional planning authority exists for Merseyside. However, the core content of the SPD will remain the same for all authorities. The introduction to each LPA’s SPD would then be tailored to reflect local policy framework, however. The local authorities would also be responsible for consulting upon and adopting the final guidance as SPD.
4.2.3 It is envisaged that the Merseyside-wide guidance will be based on a series of simple checklists, against which planning applications can be scored in terms of the development’s location and the provision made for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and private vehicles. The aim of the guidance is to ensure that proposals satisfy minimum levels of accessibility by a range of transport modes.
This document will ensure that the same development standards are applied across Merseyside. The rigorous standards will help to manage public and private parking stock, encourage alternative travel and in doing so help to reduce congestion.
4.2.4 Recognising the pressures that Development Control, (DC), teams experience, it has been recognised that the SPD should be made as simple and as concise as possible. To this end, flowcharts will be used to help navigate the user around the guidance, e.g. to determine the types of development to which the guidance applies and the thresholds that apply.
It has been suggested that other technical documents being developed by the local authorities, e.g. the Merseyside-wide Highway Design Guide and Halton Highway Design Guide could feature as appendices to the SPD. This would prove particularly useful for developers.
4.2.5 Best practice has been examined on the use of planning obligations on a formulaic basis, e.g. Nottinghamshire CC use a corridor-type approach to determine Section 106 contributions. However, the use of rigid formulae is not considered to be a particularly helpful approach for Merseyside. This is because it would complicate the guidance and also because arbitrary and unnecessarily onerous requirements could stymie development in some areas.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 89
4.2.6 The use of a checklist approach, similar to that adopted in Sefton to score planning applications would help to identify improvements / contributions in a transparent way, e.g. the provision of a pedestrian crossing could be justified if it could be shown that it helped to improve the accessibility score of a proposal. This clearly obviates the need for arbitrary requirements. It will be important for the guidance, however, to specify when planning conditions will be required against an obligation.
Car parking standards
4.2.7 A key aim of the SPD for transport is to seek to standardise the parking standards across Merseyside, to prevent developers from ‘playing off’ authorities against one another. The Task and Finish Group has noted work by the Greater Manchester authorities in their development of a parking framework for the conurbation. However, this approach is not recommended for Merseyside, due to the fact that GM’s document largely reiterates Regional Planning Guidance Standards and does not adequately differentiate between parking provision in areas of high accessibility (e.g. central Manchester) and areas of lower accessibility (e.g. rural Oldham).
Instead, the Merseyside-wide SPD will seek to set more detailed standards, based on a two-tiered approach, e.g. with Liverpool City Centre and District Centres at the top (most restrictive standards) and Else Where in the region below that. Crucially, this approach will ensure that the parking standards have SPD status, and thus be a relevant material planning consideration. It is not considered that a GM-style framework carries adequate weight at the development control level.
Policy links within individual UDPs / Draft LDFs
4.2.8 Each Local Authority’s current UDP or draft LDF has been examined to identify suitable policy links upon which to hang the SPD. This is imperative, given that SPD can only amplify existing UDP/LDF policy and cannot be contradictory to primary considerations in the development plan.
It has been concluded that there are no fundamental difficulties in identifying policy ‘hooks’ on sustainable transport considerations in individual UDPs and draft LDFs.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 90
In the work completed to date, close liaison has been maintained with frontline DC officers, who will ultimately be the main users of the guidance
Sustainability Appraisal
4.2.9 It is intended that the Sustainability Appraisal on the SPD will fully meet the requirements of the SEA Directive.
It is understood that all SPDs will also be subject to Sustainability Appraisals which will also incorporate the requirements of the SEA Directive. However, the scale and detail of the Sustainability Appraisal will be far less than for a Development Plan Document (they only reflect what is already in the plans - the chain of conformity links the SPD with DPD). GONW has advised that only one SA should be required for the development of a Merseyside- wide SPD; however, clearly if any individual district then amends its own SPD to a significant degree, it is likely that a separate SA will be required.
Target end-dates
The indicative timetable for completion is as follows:
i Summer 2005 - Task and Finish group to draft SPD;
i Summer 2005 – testing of SPD by planners and developers;
i July 2005 – Statement in Provisional LTP
i Winter 2005 - undertake Sustainability Appraisal;
i Early 2006 - secure agreement for draft SPD by appropriate network groups, final endorsement by Merseyside Network PET Group;
i March 2006 - Statement in Final LTP
i Spring 2006 - hand over document to each LPA for customisation, statutory consultation and adoption.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 91
4.3 The Highway Network
4.3.1 Road hierarchy
Note this will need updating when agreed
The Road User Hierarchy for LTP2 is defined as follows:
1. Pedestrians 2. Cyclists 3. Motorised Traffic
Across the whole Merseyside highway network, therefore, the needs of pedestrians are allocated the highest priority, followed by cyclists and then motorised traffic. This means that pedestrian access, followed by cyclist access must be maintained to the highest standard on all routes. Good pedestrian access, in particular, supports, and is an essential component of, public transport. Similarly freight routes will need good, safe, pedestrian facilities to complement the freight facilities and integrate them sustainably into the surrounding area. The application of this Road User Hierarchy will vary, however, depending on a road’s position within the Road Hierarchy.
The Road Hierarchy for LTP2 is defined as follows:
1. Strategic Routes with priority for Freight Movement (followed by public transport and then cars). 2. Strategic Routes with priority for Public Transport (followed by freight and then cars). 3. Strategic Routes with priority for Motorised Traffic generally. 4. Local Distributor Roads. 5. Local Access Roads.
Map X illustrates this
In the context of the three types of Strategic Route, highest priority is assigned to freight, public transport or general motorised traffic, depending on the type of Strategic Route, as defined above. To integrate the Road User Hierarchy with the Road Hierarchy all planned facilities for the Road Hierarchy priority modes should be subject to a rigorous audit procedure to ensure the best possible pedestrian/cyclist facilities are also provided in conjunction with the facilities for the Road Hierarchy priority modes.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 92
On Local Distributor Roads the Road User Hierarchy will be applied directly, with pedestrians and cyclists having clear priority over motorised traffic. Priority within the motorised traffic element will vary depending on the circumstances of the individual route e.g. whether or not it is a significant bus route and this will in turn affect the type of pedestrian/cyclist facilities considered appropriate.
On Local Access Roads (including residential, service and pedestrianised roads) pedestrians receive the highest priority, followed by cyclists. Further prioritisation will depend on the circumstances of the individual road e.g. whether or not it is used by public transport, service vehicles, taxis etc. District centres are treated in a similar fashion to Local Access roads with walking and cycling at the top of the hierarchy.
(i) For the first Local Transport Plan the roads of Merseyside were assigned a place in an agreed hierarchy in order that the role of each was clearly understood within the strategy of the LTP. Both the definition of the road hierarchy and its application have now been reviewed as part of the production of the second round LTP. This review has taken place within the context of the four shared priorities of congestion, access, safety and air quality.
(ii) The review for LTP2 aimed to simplify the road user hierarchy and link into the four shared priorities. In doing this the final 3 categories were replaced with one category, ‘Immediate Access Roads’ where pedestrians have highest priority, followed by cyclists. The shared priorities of safety and air quality followed by access for pedestrians and cyclists are therefore emphasised at this level. Local Distributor Roads remain with their dual role, leaving the Strategic levels to focus on the congestion shared priority and therefore defining those routes where congestion will be monitored.
(iii) The second step was to review the application of the road user hierarchy on the strategic routes, in terms of the new emphasis on relieving congestion. The three levels of strategic route were still seen as appropriate, including the public transport level due to the need to improve public transport over a large area. However, based on the LTP1 experience the definition of a public transport priority network was changed to
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 93
emphasise the need to improve, for example bus movements.
4.3.2 Network Management
To follow.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 94
Map Freight Management
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 95
4.3.3 Freight Management
Freight is a complex industry and vital to the future economic wellbeing of Merseyside. [Sections 2.2 and 3.1 have described the existing and future levels of freight movement on Merseyside. The Road hierarchy has set out those key points of the highway network that will be promoted for the efficient movement of freight [see section 4.3.1].
The factors that influence and define it are many and varied, spanning organisational and political boundaries. Local Authorities are therefore only part of a much bigger picture involving Government, businesses, land use and development, freight transport and logistics, other transport users and providers, police etc.
It is considered that most freight trips in Merseyside will fall into one of the following three categories:
i ‘Interchange’ through-trips: transit-link trips through the area via the ports and airport; i ‘Industrial’ through-trips: transit-link trips through the area via B2/B8 uses (Manufacturing / Storeage & Distribution) i ‘Servicing’ end-trips: delivery-link trips to tertiary uses within the area.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 96
The following table shows which aspects of these trips are potentially elastic to influences exerted within the region
Merseyside freight trip-type variables
Trip Type Attractor Location Mode Choice Flexibility? Flexibility X Interchange Industrial Servicing X X
The first row of this table shows that the location of the area’s ports and airport is inflexible and hence the route choice through these points is also fairly limited, but the choice of overland mode to reach and depart from these points is flexible.
The second row shows that the location of B2/B8 uses has the potential to be flexible, as does the mode by which they are served.
Finally, the third row indicates that there is little flexibility in either the routes or the mode by which tertiary industries are serviced.
Irrespective of what future developments take place in the freight industry, the specific scope and elasticities of the industry within Merseyside is unlikely to change.
Powers and Constraints
Ports are a key employer and are highlighted in the LCRDP as a key asset and economic driver (See 2.3). Ensuring existing and future access remains sufficient to maintain the attractiveness of the area as a through-route to the sea is of great importance. The Airport is important for similar reasons. Although not such a major freight- related employer as the ports, it has potential and freight route through the area should not be restricted.
By protecting and enhancing the multi-modal freight through-routes afforded by the ports and airports, the area is also able to retain and attract the B2/B8 uses which benefit from being near such routes. This delivers further employment benefits while also providing further business and security for the area’s transport
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 97
infrastructure. It is also important to maintain adequate access provision for the servicing of the area’s tertiary industries.
Scope of Local Authority/Freight Industry Interface in Merseyside
Trip Type Aims Powers Constraints Economic Impact Mitigation Development Provide Encourage Highway Funding adequate travel by rail Authority Limited rail access and Encourage powers powers ‘Interchange mode choice efficient Planning External ’ trips Protect land highway use Authority mode for port and Mitigate powers choice airport highway influences expansion impacts Provide Encourage Highway Funding adequate travel by rail Authority Land access and Encourage powers ownership mode choice efficient Planning Limited rail for existing highway use Authority powers ‘Industrial’ Protect Mitigate powers External trips multi-modal highway mode development impacts choice sites for new Encourage influences multi-modal development for new Maintain Encourage Highway Funding access efficient Authority ‘Servicing’ requirements highway use powers trips Mitigate highway impacts
The table above illustrates the importance of:
i Provide adequate overland access and mode choice to maintain competitiveness of ports, airport and B2/B8 uses; i Protect appropriate land and access capacity for port, airport and B2/B8 development; i Manage and mitigate residual freight highway impacts.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 98
4.3.4 Cycling and Walking
4.3.5 Rights of Way
(i) Local rights of way (as defined in section 60(5) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) have the potential to contribute in different ways to the key objectives of LTPs. In particular an improved network of rights of way, by contributing to encouraging walking and cycling, will assist with the reduction of congestion, improved accessibility, safer roads, and improved air quality. Rights of way can also contribute to many aspects of quality of life issues, including the prosperity of communities through the economic benefits arising from their use for recreational purposes, and to the health of those who use them.
(ii) As a minimum, the highway authorities will carry out their statutory duties in respect of local rights of way: (a) to maintain those rights of way that are highways maintainable at public expense; (b) to ensure that as far as practicable, the rights of way are not obstructed; (c) to signpost and waymark the rights of way to indicate their routes to the public; (d) to record on definitive maps and statements those rights of way eligible to be so recorded.
(iii) In addition, the authorities will seek to make improvements to the network of local rights of way in the ways set out below. The location and nature of the improvements will be guided by the outcome of the assessments to be undertaken as part of the process of preparing the rights of way Improvement plan, and also by the priorities of the LTP.
(a) Physical improvements to rights of way
Such improvements could include surfacing, lighting, removal or adjustment of barriers. These can improve accessibility for those whose mobility is restricted as well as encouraging wider use generally. Examples of improvement undertaken and planned : Improvements to a 500m length of
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 99
the Trans-Pennine Trail in Sefton to create a separate cycle track alongside the multi- user route. Surface construction improvements to 600m section of the path which runs through Halewood Park in Knowsley: the remaining section, including the link to Halewood Train Station and Plantation Primary School, will be surfaced some time in the next financial year if funds can be secured for these works.
(b) Network improvements
These improvements could be the creation of new rights of way, or the change in status of existing rights of way, for example the conversion of a footpath to a shared-use cycle track or to a bridleway to facilitate horse-riding. If the need arises, routes which exist at present and are used by the public, but which are not public rights of way, will be formally created as public rights of way in order to guarantee their continued availability to the public in the future. Example of improvement undertaken : Public Footpath No. 33, Hoylake, Wirral has recently been improved as part of the LTP cycle programme. It is now dual usage (walking/cycling).
Best Practice – Wirral Way Country Park
The resurfacing of the Wirral Way has been an exemplary example of partnership working on an environmentally sensitive site to provide a route for walkers and cyclists. Also, for the first time in the Wirral Way’s thirty year history, wheelchairs can now access the Country Park.
In 1973, the disused branch of the 19km railway from Hooton to West Kirby was opened to the public as Wirral Country Park. However, thirty years later and suffering from the pressure of 500,000 visitors a year, the Wirral section had deteriorated to such an extent that many parts were impassable with thick mud meaning that families with pushchairs had
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 100
particular difficulty and people in wheelchairs were excluded.
Joint working with Cheshire Wildlife and the Wirral Park Rangers was essential to protect the rare wildlife along the route such as the Dingy Skipper Butterfly and yellow ants and to ensure the work was carried out before the beginning of the bird breeding season. Walkers, cyclists and horse riders were also consulted extensively on the proposals as well as the Friends of Ashton Park.
A cross-departmental working group successfully bid for an additional £248,000 from Mersey Waterfront to resurface 4.3km of the route. The proposals were for a shared route for pedestrians and cyclists and a separate bridleway for horse riders. Improved access for maintenance vehicles was also a key requirement of the scheme as well as the use of recycled and sustainable materials.
The improvements have been an instant success with the park rangers reporting a considerable increase in the number of cyclists using the route and particularly, families on bicycles. Wheelchair users have finally been able to access the Country Park and the construction of a new disabled ramp to link the Wirral Way to Ashton Park and West Kirby has created a safe short cut to local shops, which avoids the main road. Work is now underway to improve the rest of the route from Thurstaston to the Cheshire County border.
Examples of proposal : Formby to Hightown Path, Sefton, needs improving and widening to create an important cycle link, St Helens Draft Bridleway Strategy has identified a range of potential bridleway routes.
(c) Information Improvements
In order to secure the benefits for the public offered by the network of local rights of way it may be necessary to invest in improved
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 101
information. This may be information published, whether on paper or via a website, or it could be information on the ground, eg improved signing of routes to indicate where they go and which types of users they are available for. Examples of improvement undertaken: Walks in Knowsley available from authority’s website, Wirral Walking Festival, Guide to walking and cycling in Sefton, Travelwise website Walking page.
(iv) The proposed timetable for the ROWIP is as follows:
Assessment work to be completed by September 2006 Preparation of draft statement of action and October – December consideration of draft statement and report on 2006 assessment by LAF Consultation on draft plan as required by the Act January – March 2007 (DEFRA guidance advises 12-week period) Consideration by officers and the LAF of April – June 2007 comments received on the draft plan and decision on changes to be made as a consequence Approval by each of the Merseyside authorities July - October 2007 of the final version of the plan Publication of approved plan November 2007
4.4 The single integrated public transport network
“Stitching together the various elements of the public transport package and closely integrating the package to the wider social, economic and environmental agenda is the key to a successful Plan”.
4.4.1 Bus Strategy
(i) Bus remains the major public transport mode on Merseyside, but also the mode over which there is least control in LTP2 planning terms. The prime requirement is to finalise the Merseyside Bus Strategy including a clear statement of policies and proposals required to fulfil the SIPTN objectives, and contribute to the Shared Priorities and the wider LTP2 targets. This element of the work will draw together the draft Bus Strategy, the consultation results, (alternative) operator proposals, “metro-bus” route proposals, Merseytram Integrated Corridor Management proposals, and a critical review of the
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 102
alternative procedures for delivery of the strategy including Statutory Quality Partnerships and Quality Contracts. The strategy will include all services including the core network of radial routes, orbital routes, commercial and tendered services and the range of services/service providers in the Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) sector including Joblink, Merseylink and Community Transport services.
4.4.2 Rail
(i) The basis of this rail strategy therefore is to:-
(a) build upon the effective rail network with particular focus to developing Merseyside’s regional and national network;
(b) to develop the rail network to support the commercial, retail and leisure development taking place in Liverpool, especially in the City Centre;
(c) to support the economic drivers of an expanding Liverpool John Lennon Airport, as its annual passenger throughput heads towards the 5m/6m passengers p.a.;
(d) to develop rail freight operations with improved access and capacity to the Mersey Ports; in support of existing traffic generators, e.g. Jaguar cars at Halewood; and existing and new inter-modal freight terminals at Speke, Kirkby, Ditton and potentially at Parkside and Widnes.
(ii) The key investments that have been undertaken during LTPI include:-
(i) complete re-franchising of the Merseyrail (electrics network), uniquely under the control of Merseytravel, and for a period of 25 years;
(ii) as part of this concession agreement:-
i all 59 units have been fully refurbished both internally and externally which has contributed to the improved performance;
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 103
i six stations in Liverpool City Centre, Birkenhead and Southport have been fully gated - others to follow including Liverpool South Parkway, St Helens Central and Conway Park;
i several bus/rail interchanges have been built at Kirkby, Whiston and Formby with more to come;
i City Centre underground stations have been subject to refurbishment with more to come, including a gateway project for Lime Street mainline station.
(iii) Merseyrail provides a potential basis for connecting the wider City Region through development of rail corridors beyond the existing boundaries.
(iv) To achieve this, Merseytravel is undertaking a detailed cost assessment of extending the third rail electric network to its natural boundaries including Preston, Wigan, Wrexham and Helsby.
(v) In addition, Merseytravel believes that Merseyside’s longer distance rail connections need to be developed, and is undertaking a detailed cost assessment of extending the 25kv overhead electric network between Lime Street and the West Coast Main Line covering the missing links:-
Edge Hill - Earlestown Huyton - Wigan Hunts Cross - Deansgate (Manchester)
(vi) The potential reach of all these network extensions and electrifications is illustrated in the attached network map: providing a Liverpool Rail Hub linking all the key locations in the North West and North Wales.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 104
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 105
(vii) In addition to the electrification schemes which increase capacity by allowing faster emus to operate; allows through running without the need to change (which is a time penalty and in some cases a barrier to travel), Merseytravel is playing a pivotal role in developing te case for three new rail line openings:-
(i) Olive Mount Curve (Edge Hill) to allow freight access from Seaforth to the West Coast Main Line at Earlestown without having to cross the busy Edge Hill Junction;
(ii) re-building of the Halton Curve (Runcorn) to allow two-way working for passenger services from Lime Street - Liverpool South Parkway (for the Liverpool John Lennon Airport), Runcorn, Chester and North Wales; it would also provide an additional freight route south;
(viii) St Helens Central - St Helens Junction link to provide direct trains from the rejuvenated St Helens Town Centre with Manchester.
4.4.4 Merseytram Network
The SIPTN will need to set out the Line 1 construction/delivery programme, Integrated Corridor Management proposals, Line 2 TWA/construction programme, the phasing of the deferred section of the City Centre Loop and the Line 3 development programme.
4.4.5 Ferries
4.4.6 Developing Park & Ride
This task will address P&R within the context of the wider long-term strategy, define the aims of the P&R strategy and “LTP2 fit”. The list of potential sites will be reviewed in relation to key destinations, rail and tram routes, issues related to potential strategic sites (including land availability, planning status etc.), scale of requirements (+/- 5,000 spaces), scope for Major Scheme status, temporary (Capital of Culture etc.) and permanent sites. The scope of survey requirements for “after” surveys of
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 106
existing/new P&R facilities, cost estimates, and expected outputs/outcomes will also be addressed.
4.4.7 Developing Interchange
The review will examine the strategic fit with other aspects of SIPTN/LTP2 strategy, assessment of passenger/operator benefits, scope to enhance radial/orbital trip interchanges, and specify the methodology for next phase site identification, site identification, cost estimates, and expected outputs/outcomes.
4.4.8 Keeping the Passenger Informed
The work will address the following: fit with overall LTP strategy and SIPTN, information as an integral part of bus strategy, P&R and interchange provision, links with Merseytram and Merseyrail, making best use of technological developments, linkages with Travelwise TravelSafe and wider behaviour change initiatives.
4.4.9 Ticketing Initiatives
A review of the range of current ticketing schemes will be undertaken together with a scoping of additional ticket/fare options (integrated corridor ticketing, Smartcard etc.).
4.4.10 TravelSafe – Keeping Passengers and Staff Free from Fear of Crime
The enduring problem of public transport related crime and disorder has been that without specific police attention and a lack of sophistication reporting streams, the situation has been rendered invisible to meaningful analysis and comprehension.
The intelligent use of crime mapping can provide a better understanding of crime and its locations and enables improved targeting and resource deployment, it delivers improved intelligence products and facilitates tactical analysis and evaluation. The nature of the public transport network means that it is particularly well suited to this manner of analysis. The IRiS system delivers a significant advance in delivering such a system for the public transport network on Merseyside. IRiS is helping Merseytravel and partners in the district CDRPs to tackle this significant but previously under considered area of community safety
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 107
By making best use of familiar IT products a simple and quick reporting stream from drivers to intelligence analyst has been developed. A central database is updated automatically for analysis and mapping of incidents. A former police intelligence analyst produces fortnightly tactical assessments on public transport related crime, to the standard of the police National Intelligence Model, which are then provided to Merseyside Police to become and integral part of their tasking and co-ordination process. By connecting the capture and analysis of data with the targeting and deployment of resources, the IRiS system is making visible, for the first time, the scale and range of this problem and so facilitating effective intervention.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 108
Spitting Anti Social Behaviour
Spitting • • • Physical Assault
Spitting • Alarm Misuse Anti Social Behaviour Anti Social Behaviour Window Etched Verbal Assault Anti Social Behaviour
• Seats Damaged Verbal Assault Theft Theft
Side Window Smashed
4.5 Meeting the needs of the disabled
(NB - This needs substantial new work).
Specialist provision is likely to take the form of such facilities as community transport, travel information and travel training. Urgent need to review all training of new and existing transport professionals to ensure that they in fact deliver inclusive transport systems and services. (meeting new requirements under DDA 2005)
Legislation, Codes of Practice and Guidance must place an obligation on all transport professionals not only to ensure they take advantage of training opportunities but also use current national standards in accessibility for disabled people effectively in designing, building, refurbishing and managing inclusive transport systems and services.
The local transport plan policies should use walk ability as a key test of the acceptability of proposed developments. Housing, supermarket, places of work need to be located and design in so that people can reach everywhere easily on foot particularly public buildings like Dr Surgeries and libraries.
In order to get the balance right highways agencies and local councils need to audit and redesign all streets to reflect the different functions. More space should be given over to those on foot or on cycles. Junctions should be designed with walkers in mind that other crossings are safer and easier.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 109
4.4.? The role of Taxis
(i) Taxis play a major role in the transport of people in Merseyside and the government Action Plan For Taxis and private hire vehicles makes it clear that they are an integral part of the LTP process. In order to assist this process a task and finish group was set up with representatives of licensing authorities and the taxi trade as part of the MITF.
(ii) This developed a series of broad proposals, which were agreed by MITF in 2004 and these covered:
- Standards And Reports - Training - Security
These now form the basis of further work to ensure integration between all sustainable modes both fixed and flexible.
(iii) The role of the taxi varies to a large extent but can play an especially important role in terms of:
Accessibility – where
i Demand levels are very low i Mobility problems preclude use of the normal system
Personal security – when
i Late at night when buses may not be available i Door to door transport is needed for certain groups
Meeting special needs such as
i Demand for additional Merseylink or possibly Joblink services i Special school needs
The interaction between taxis and other DRT modes will be helped by the introduction of new software.
(iv) The aim is to get the taxi mode integrated into wider transport provision based upon a developing a standard taxi or private hire specification.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 110
(v) At the present time it is not possible to coordinate standards across the whole of the county area as there are a range of geographical, political and economic factors which will take time to resolve.
(vi) In order to improve information relating to taxi usage a proforma has been developed to cover:
- Trips - by passengers and numbers of passengers - Miles – overall mileage as well as dead mileage - Usage – market makeup - Finance – fare charged would also be collected taxi use as
(vii) This has been refined by the licensing officers and agreement is being developed on responsibilities for collections and who, what, how, when will be involved to ensure the data is collected.
(viii) The data will inform proposals which may involve more us of taxi to\link with other demand responsive modes, interchange design and operation, and possible integrated ticketing.
(ix) It is clear that security is a key area for all parties especially for;
- Passengers - who may feel threatened by other members of public as well as drivers - Drivers – which feel threatened by some customers to the extent where some areas are not served
(x) If a safe and secure taxi options can be provided it will be possible for this to provide assistance to other modes such as night buses when there is a clear objective to clear the city and town centre as s safely as possible.
In order to progress this effectively the proposals are integrated within TravelSafe.
(xi) In a similar way to security, training is seen a vital to help the credibility as mode for regular user but especially for new users from national and international markets in the build up to capital of culture and with the expansions of Liverpool airport.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 111
(xii) Well trained staff would assist in perceived safety and image of taxi travel as well as the actual comfort and attractiveness as the mode. The skills which would be most important to cover would include:
- Safety - in dealing with specific issues such as conflict avoidance and handling to assist security.
- DDA – to ensure that visible and invisible problems would be recognised and dealt with.
- Customer care –general customer care to ensure that the experience was attractive as well as convenient.
- Languages – which would be especially important t for airport customers and as capital of culture approaches.
(xiii) The Merseyside Taxi Training Scheme (MTTS) is being developed and will focus on Customer care and DDA issues.
(xiv) The MTTS will be initially applied to
(i) New drivers – at the time if their application and up to 12 months after they have been licensed.
(ii) Problem drivers – who have been the subject of some other sanction may also be required to undertake the training package.
(iii) Other drivers – others who may be required to serve the airport or other gateways to the region to provide a level of quality control for the taxi provision.
Funding will be sought from a wide range of agencies including operators the licensing authorities and a range of government packages and skill development organisations.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 112
(xv) The importance of a high quality taxi provision will be recognised by the provision of high quality taxi ranks, new information provision and better integration with the public transport network. This will be particularly important at key locations such as the Airport, Lime Street Station, City Centre and other key destinations.
4.4.12 City Centre Coach Management Strategy
(i) The need to better manage tourist/visitor coaches into Liverpool City Centre was recognised in the City Centre Movement Strategy (CCMS) and first round Local Transport Plan (LTP) in 2000. In particular the need to formalise drop-off/pick-up points and ensure adequate longer term parking for coaches was highlighted. With increased activity in the City Centre and the declaration of Liverpool as European Capital of Culture in 2008 the need to both better manage existing coach access and to plan for a future increase in the number of coaches has grown more acute.
(ii) The development of a City Centre Coach Management Strategy is now underway. It will take into account the disappearance of the present coach parking facilities at Kings Dock as the site is redeveloped from summer 2005. A planning condition has been placed on the development to retain 30 spaces on the site until new facilities have been identified.
(iii) In order to inform the development of the City Centre Coach Management Strategy surveys were commissioned in early 2005 to gather information on coach parking demand in the City Centre through telephone interviews with the main coach generators and parking beat surveys. Further surveys were planned for the peak summer season in 2005.
(iv) The draft Strategy identifies three areas of concern:
Parking
(a) New public coach parking facilities will be required by 2008 to replace the existing Kings Dock parking and cater for the
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 113
increased demand from regeneration including the new Kings Dock Arena and the European Capital of Culture generally.
A number of solutions including a dedicated site, on-street parking and arrangements with owners of private facilities are being investigated.
(b) Dropping-off/Picking-up
A number of new drop-off/pick-up locations will need to be identified to serve the City Centre generally and the Pier Head/Waterfront, Hope Street and Cultural Quarter areas in particular.
Possible drop-off/pick-up locations are being investigated, including through shared use e.g. with loading/unloading bays.
(c) Information
A Coach Management Information Strategy is accepted as pivotal to the successful management of coach access to Liverpool City Centre.
The production of leaflets and the development of a website are being investigated. Further possibilities include the establishment of a Coach Forum for the City Centre to bring together all interested parties including coach operators, the City Council and the major attractors.
4.6 Rural Issues
4.6.1 Merseyside has a small but significant rural population. A recent study has shown that key issues are:
i To provide travel choice for people living in rural communities.
i To meet the essential travel needs of people living in rural communities.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 114
i To provide people living in rural communities with opportunities to travel to and from leisure and recreation destinations.
i Reduce reliance on the car for the journey to school.
i To ensure that all rural passenger transport services are accessible to all.
i To ensure that the rural population is aware of the full range of available travel opportunities.
4.6.2 In rural communities, there are generally two types of travel need. The first “essential” travel needs are those that provide access to jobs, education, healthcare and food shopping facilities while the second set of needs “optional” or quality of life requirements are equally important if less tangible than essential needs. Such needs may relate to issues such as lifestyle and leisure activities which have an impact on the quality of life that an individual or family can enjoy.
Essential Travel Needs
4.6.3 In most rural communities essential travel requirements are met, even for those without access to their own transport. It is achieved in a variety of ways in places where there is not a conventional public transport service to the desired destination – commonly through formal provision such as school buses, local authority demand responsive services targeted on elderly and disabled people, community transport, the patient transport service, social car schemes and good neighbour schemes. Where there is no formal provision, real hardship is a possibility.
4.6.4 However, many essential trips are catered for by lifts from neighbours, friends or work colleagues. Where existing public transport or reliable informal arrangements are not feasible to meet essential travel requirements, there is a need for intervention to facilitate journeys. Demand responsive services are one possible answer but, in many cases, solutions will be required that are tailored to satisfy the particular needs of individuals. One example is the Countryside Agency’s Wheels to Work programme.
4.6.5 For individuals living in communities that are not served by regular public transport, the only option is to find a way
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 115
to cope. Those who can drive may have to purchase a second hand car and may face hardship because of the need to sustain it on a low income. Others may have to move away from an area to somewhere where local transport is better. In effect, for some people with low incomes, car ownership may be a hidden disbenefit of living in a rural area. Ownership and constant use of a car may be a reluctant choice which people have to make in order to maintain what they consider to be a reasonable quality of life.
Optional Travel Needs
4.6.6 The villages in Merseyside are in semi-rural areas on the urban fringe and cannot be described as remote in the same way as communities in “deep rural” areas. Expectations may be higher because there is a wide range of leisure destinations available in nearby urban centres. Leisure destinations on Merseyside are readily accessible for car users and where public transport services operate until late evening. Inability to access leisure destinations is, perhaps, more keenly felt by those without access to a car in semi-rural communities where there is no regular evening or Sunday transport to nearby leisure destinations. Inability to participate in leisure activities is an important factor contributing to social exclusion. It may impact on an individual’s physical health through the loss of opportunities to enjoy the physical exercise associated with some recreational activities. Denial of opportunities to participate may also have a negative impact on mental health.
4.67 Although it is not realistic to suggest that all optional journeys should be met by public transport, it is useful to categorise the leisure activities that people living in rural Merseyside should be able to access. If access to leisure and recreational destinations could be achieved once or twice a week, it would represent a step change in quality of life for many people living in rural communities. Activities such as going to the theatre or cinema are more likely to be focused on evenings implying a need for early evening transport for the outward journey and late night transport home. Not only is it necessary to consider the availability of a transport service, but it is also essential to address issues of personal security after dark and the special needs of older people who are able to walk only short distances from bus stop or rail station to home.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 116
4.6.8 A related issue is the amount of ferrying that is necessary to take older children and teenagers to and from leisure destinations. This is a problem for non- carowning households and a burden for parents with cars. Provision of appropriate evening and weekend public transport services would give teenagers more independence and reduce the number of car journeys made by their parents.
4.6.9 The exact journey requirements such activities engender in any community will vary according to population, age structure and the range of facilities that are available in nearby urban areas. There is an element of seasonality - more social, indoor activities taking place in the winter months and more outdoor visits in the summer.
4.6.10 Many people living in rural areas may not be aware of the travel opportunities that actually exist using the existing public transport network. Any proposals to improve public transport in rural areas needs to be complemented by a parallel promotional exercise.
4.6.11 The analysis of accessibility on Merseyside shows that, in most cases, existing conventional bus and rail service provide core services on main routes in evenings and on Sundays. On main bus corridors and most Merseyrail lines services operate until late at night and are suitable for most return leisure journeys from town and city centres. In some cases, early evening outward journeys are possible but no late return journey is operated, largely negating the value of the outward service. What is usually lacking is safe and reliable transport for the last stage of the return journey from key bus stops on main corridors or rail stations to rural communities. Given concerns about personal safety, a service is needed that delivers people to or close to their front doorsteps. Taxis are a solution for those who can afford them, but they may not be readily available locally from a rural station or a stop on an inter-urban bus route to a village.
4.6.12 A potential solution is the provision of a pre-bookable shared taxi service designed to meet key trains or buses bus from central Merseyside that could serve a number of different villages within the target rural target zones. This facility would benefit those on low or fixed incomes who are currently excluded from much social activity because of the high cost of late night taxi fares.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 117
The Freight Strategy in LTP1 based on a comprehensive Freight Study completed in !998, recommended interventions that fall into four categories, as follows:
i Promotion of multi-modal ‘freight villages’ for B2/B8 uses; i Identification of proposed local rail freight network and works to improve coverage, capacity and efficiency; i Highway works to address existing problems and also to facilitate freight village proposals; and i To develop an internet-based liaison forum between local authority and freight industry representatives.
Evidence Base – Emerging Influences
NB – Need more on rail freight, interchanges, SIAs, Ports, etc
4.7 TravelWise
4.7.1 For the last 6 years the Merseyside LTP partners have run a joint travel awareness and behaviour change programme under the banner of TravelWise.
4.7.2 The Merseyside TravelWise initiative now has seven full time officers and the initiative is steered by a partner steering group and what has grown to become a team of TravelWise Officers . It has established a successful programme of awareness raising, travel plan development and targeted initiatives to facilitate and encourage increased use of sustainable transport.
4.7.3 In 2004, the partners recognised the achievements of TravelWise and it is now a core element of the second Local Transport Plan. To support the potential role, the partners have given increased financial resources to this approach particularly in terms of demand management. As a result, the central team of officers have been made permanent.
INSERT PHOTOS
NB – Add in Best Practice eg
4.7.4 Developing the TravelWise strategy
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 118
The Merseyside TravelWise strategy has been updated to reflect the core role for TravelWise in delivering the second Local Transport Plan for Merseyside.
i To support effective management of traffic growth as part of Merseyside’s demand management strategy.
i To support delivery of the Merseyside Local Transport Plan shared priorities to address accessibility, congestion, air quality, safety and quality of life.
i To encourage and enable sustainable travel patterns and the use of sustainable.
i transport modes
i To integrate transport, health, environment and land use planning sector working across common goals
4.7.5
4.7.6 The enhanced role for the Merseyside TravelWise programme, reflect its impact on each of the shared priority areas.
(These are described in detail within each of the shared priority chapters).
Quality of Life
4.7.7 The TravelWise programme will play a strong role in ensuring wider quality of life issues are incorporated into Local Transport Plan delivery. The TravelWise programme enshrines healthy, socially and environmentally beneficial lifestyle choices as part of a rounded approach to improving Merseyside. The initiative places transport in the context of attractive, sustainable communities which improve the quality of life for everyone which encompasses green and quality design issues, noise pollution and healthy food options as well as physical activity and other more obvious links.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 119
Context and Value
4.7.8 Merseyside’s TravelWise programme contributes to the four key principles of LTP development. The existing strong links to health, environmental, economic and social agendas place the programme in the wider context and many of the programme areas depend on effective engagement with the community and other sectors. The partners have recognised that to ensure that maximum value for money is gained from capital investment undertaken and planned in LTP2, a stronger awareness and behaviour change programme is be needed. The TravelWise initiative will deliver targeted campaigns in support of infrastructure and service improvements. The TravelWise programme already has a strong monitoring regime which will be used to enhance effective design, implementation and monitoring of future campaigns.
Health
4.7.9 The strong links between the objectives of the TravelWise initiative and those of the health sector have been made throughout the TravelWise programme to date. These include:-
i increase activity by encouraging more use of cycling and walking and their integration with public transport;
i relieving stress/wellbeing/mental health through greater use of active travel and reduced car use; and
i improved social inclusion, better access and information;
i improved air quality by reduction of car use, relieving pressure on those with respiratory diseases;
i facilitating lead role in encouraging greater use of sustainable transport through travel plans at health facilities.
4.7.10 The TravelWise initiative is integrally linked to the health agenda and will build stronger partnerships across the sector during the second LTP period. (Will need to add more in here subject to current discussions ie Heart of Mersey, action plan) Central, regional, local government and health agencies are giving increased priority for
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 120
physical activity as a means to tackle obesity and associated ill health. The Choosing Health document identifies clear parallels in the approach and initiatives which will address activity and access. The TravelWise initiative will be central in ensuring that walking and cycling are prioritised as a means of delivering sustainable and regular increases in individuals activity levels by integration into regular routines.
4.7.11 Partnership working with the Heart of Mersey presents a strong opportunity to ensure efforts to achieve this are effectively co-ordinated and delivered with the health sector and will be a key goal and potential mechanism for increased impact. Integration of active travel options within health strategies will also be an important approach.
Note - Could use Active City as an eg of partnership?
Need to build in contribution to targets: Travel to school Cycle index Activity target Congestion targets Road Safety targets
Add in Action Plan within health?
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 121
5. The Shared Priorities: Congestion
5.1 Monitoring and consultation suggest that congestion is not a major problem on Merseyside at the moment, and the need to develop specific proposals to alleviate problems is not regarded as a major priority. (Section 2.4 summarises the feedback from consultation).
5.2 There is, however, a growing recognition that it is becoming an increasing problem, particularly in certain key locations, and that this could be detrimental to the well being of the area. There are several reasons for this, including:
(i) Lack of congestion is seen as giving Merseyside a ‘competitive edge’ in investment terms, which would be lost, if congestion were to increase.
(ii) It could have environmental and health impacts. Merseyside already has two Air Quality Management Area (AQMAs), declared in the City Centre and Rocket Junction at the end of the M62; both of these are largely due to the affects of traffic; and
(iii) It will harm the efficiency of the areas roads for freight and public transport which will affect economic performance.
5.3 Chapter One has set out how this LTP is focussed on providing the right framework for the continued economic growth and social and economic regeneration of Merseyside, (and the wider LRCDP). Chapter Three has set out the consequences of anticipated economic growth in terms of likely increases in demand for travel. The analysis has illustrated the gap between Merseyside and comparitor regions in terms of GVA and the economic gap that remains to be closed. This anticipated rise in economic growth and personal wealth coupled with existing lower than average levels of car ownership, provide scope for large rises in personal travel. The same can be anticipated in terms of commercial and freight traffic.
5.4 Such growth will potentially have large effects on traffic levels that will potentially give rise to problems already being seen in other large centres and lead to conditions outlined in 5.2 above.
5.5 The LTP therefore has the challenge of balancing the need to provide the right conditions for economic growth, and there are understandable concerns that restraint measures for transport will constrain this economic growth, in what many local stakeholders regard as a still brittle economy, whilst safeguarding the efficiency of the network and providing
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 122
protection for health and the quality of life. In this latter regard, there are particularly strong links with the Air Quality priority discussed in Chapter Six.
5.6 In setting out the support for economic growth, the LTP has identified key locations where economic growth is anticipated in the LCRDP and MESAP. These include:
(i) The City Centre;
(ii) The strategic investment areas (illustrated by Map X in Section ?);
(iii) John Lennon Airport; and
(iv) The Mersey Ports;
(v) In addition, like other areas Merseyside has particular problems associated with the school run (which were reflected in the public and stakeholder consultation) and measures particularly via TravelWise will need to be directed at this issue.
5.7 The two next pressing concerns over the lifeline of the LTP are likely to be the City Centre and Mersey Ports, particularly at Seaforth, and most acutely if the proposed new container berths are constructed.
5.8 These issues are dealt with in more detail in S.XX below.
Existing Situation
5.9 It is a concern that a clear definition of congestion is currently available. Notwithstanding this, we welcome the decision to examine the issue of congestion in terms of person delay, which is a more realistic and understandable measure.
5.10 In order to gain as full an understanding as possible of the current situation on Merseyside, a number of analyses have been undertaken. It has become apparent that there are data shortages on Merseyside and measures to address this will be instigated in Autumn 2005 (more details are provided in Chapter 11).
5.11 Map X below illustrates locations where local authorities consider that congestion is a problem, whilst Map 7 uses IM data to examine locations where average speed in the morning peak is below that of the speed limit on that section of road.
(Note need maps from Richard)
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 123
5.12 Schemes will be developed to mitigate the problems in these areas, these will consider:
i Changes to improve flows i Revised priorities i Restricted conflicting movements i Redesigned layouts i Measures to reduce flows i Improved public transport i Walking and cycling schemes i Signing
Examples of such measures can be found in the five year programme described in Chapter 11).
5.13 In the first LTP a number of targets were set relating to traffic growth, based on assessment of likely economic growth and trends in car ownership. It was agreed to:
(i) Restrict traffic growth overall to 21%; and
(ii) Allow no traffic growth into the major centres.
NB (Check this)
5.14 Figure X below illustrates that traffic growth overall has been just 7% over the previous 5 years, but Figure 7 shows that there have been wide discrepancies in the traffic across the districts with Knowsley showing the greatest increases, and Liverpool the least.
5.15 Reasons for such increases in Knowsley may reflect the fact that the district has had the greatest rise in economic activity and job creation, and that car ownership has traditionally been very low.
5.16 It has not proved possible to restrain traffic growth to the centres, possibly because of the quicker than anticipated growth in economic activity.
(Note – Check these figures and redraft the paragraph)
5.17 It was also agreed in the first LTP that issues of more rigorous restraint including charging would be made within the period of the second LTP dependent upon a number of factors including improvements to the public transport network and other sustainable modes.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 124
Congestion Charging
5.18 It has previously been noted that the economic growth on Merseyside might have been quicker than anticipated, but that traffic overall has not yet matched this growth. It is now considered that there is a ‘time-lag’ between economic growth and traffic growth on this basis. It may be likely that there will be an accelerating level of traffic growth over the lifetime of the second LTP.
5.19 Nevertheless at all levels within the sub-regional partnership, and notwithstanding the recognition that ?… traffic growth will have impacts on congestion and quality of life, it is not considered that congestion charging is ?… appropriate to Merseyside.
5.20 We have already illustrated the gap in GUA between Merseyside and comparitor regions, and showing that traffic growth is well within the first LTP target of 21%.
5.21 It is therefore considered that other demand measures are more appropriate at this time and can provide the correct level of restraint over the lifetime of the second LTP. (These are described in 5.XX below).
5.22 Figure X below illustrates the anticipated range of growth in traffic and car ownership over the longer term to 2021. Figure 7 provides indications of the impact that the proposed range of demand management measures will have on constraining that growth. In 5.XX below a more detailed analysis of likely traffic levels based upon output from the Merseyside Strategic Transport Model is provided.
5.23 Despite this position on congestion charging, Merseyside welcomes the Government’s initiative on a natural road user charging regime, and would be willing to participate in any appropriate pilot initiatives within the national initiative.
The Merseyside Strategic Transport Model
5.24 The Merseyside LTP partnership are developing a Strategic Transport Model (STM) based upon SDG’s Dynamic Area Model (full technical details are provided in Appendix 5.X). To date the am peak has been modelled; other time periods will be modelled to allow input to the final LTP.
5.25 There has been close collaboration in the development of the STM with work undertaken for the LCRDP and MESAP (details in Appendix 6) such that the five economic scenarios tested for
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 125
the LCRDP have been modelled for their likely impact on traffic levels and transport demand.
5.26 Analysis of STM to be prepared by SDG.
The school run.
5.27 Demand Management
The Merseyside Tracking Survey shows that X% of short car journeys are made because of the school run. Action to constrain and reduce car use for the school run are regarded as a priority for this LTP.
(Note can we get more figures)
5.28 Increasing the use of sustainable modes for journeys to school will not only have an impact on potential localised congestion but will assist other policy areas such as road safety. (Note – Is this true?) and the ?… health agenda in tackling levels of health and obesity levels. The Merseyside TravelWise initiative is developing strong joint working arrangements with the health sector on these issues. (This issue is described more fully in Section 4.7).
There is no single solution to managing demand and controlling congestion. Success is most likely through a balance of demand side solutions such as:
(i) parking pricing and restraint
(ii) travel planning; and
(iii) low emission zones.
And supply side measures such as:
(i) improved public transport
(ii) better information on mode choice for trips; and
(iii) greater encouragement to walking and cycling.
TravelWise
5.29 Section 4.7 has set the commitment in this LTP to promote ‘smart choices’ as a key element of the overall strategy. A ?… part of this relates to the congestion shared priority.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 126
The Smart Choices report establishes that TravelWise initiatives, ranging from Travel Plans to marketing campaigns promoting new infrastructure can have a significant impact on congestion. The TravelWise programme will focus resources to support efforts for sustainable regeneration in Merseyside.
Travel Plans will target key growth areas such as the Strategic Investment Areas and major developments including those at the Waterfront in Liverpool and John Lennon Airport. The School Travel Plan programme will address peak hour traffic and localised congestion problems at schools.
New infrastructure and service improvements will be marketed by appropriate techniques and linked to reducing peak hour travel including direct marketing and individualised marketing initiatives.
The City Centre
5.30 Alongside the Mersey Ports and John Lennon Airport, the City Centre is considered to be the main economic driver for the Liverpool City Region over the next five years.
5.31 In the short term, Capital of Culture in 2008 will provide a powerful focus for City Centre development, and providing for greatly increased visitor numbers ?… that year. (These issues were covered in greater detail in Chapter 3).
5.32 The scale of current development within the City Centre coupled with Capital of Culture mean that it is considered unrealistic to anticipate ?… growth into the City Centre over the lifetime of the next LTP.
5.33 Nevertheless, the situation with the City Centre is particularly acute. Much of the centre is a World Heritage site which brings a range of sensitive planning and development concerns. It is also already a declared Air Quality Management Action Area (AQMA) (this is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6). Analysis for the AQMA nevertheless illustrates that the problems are confined to a number of locations within the Centre, rather than overall, and that whilst the AQMA declaration is a direct result of traffic, the bulk of the problems are caused by HGV’s and buses. Successful development of these modes will therefore both assist the AQMA and address issues of congestion.
5.34 In terms of buses (and public transport in general) these developments will be set within the framework of a robust parking management regime.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 127
5.35 The Centre is already subject to a rigorous decriminalised parking regime. This will be coupled with confirmation of a parking cap of 16,500 spaces within the City Centre. This cap will remain in place despite the Grosvenor shopping development and Kings Dock.
A review of the current parking arrangements has been commissioned within the City Centre. Any parking policy must ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided to meet the needs of shoppers, visitors, commuters, businesses and residents, balanced against the overall transportation objective of reducing overall traffic demand on the roads. Consultation is currently taking place with Stakeholders and the general public on the Draft City Centre Parking Strategy and it is anticipated that a completed strategy will be submitted with the final LTP in March 2006.
The Problems and Issues
Car Parking surveys undertaken in January 2004 indicate that there are currently 17,200 spaces available for public use, 15,443 of which are off-street. The majority of car parks were found to be operating at high occupancy levels during the week (between 80% and 100%). However about 6,200 of the available spaces (40%) are used as contract only (the spaces are paid for in advance and used mainly by commuters). Off- street car park fees vary with the targeting of long stay or short stay dependant on the location. Currently over 50% of the publicly available spaces are targeted at long stay parking utilised by commuters making it difficult for shoppers/ visitors to park.
Proposed Policies and Strategies
In line with the draft City Centre Parking Strategy the following policies are proposed for consultation:
i To cap the total number of off-street publicly available car parking spaces at 16,500.
i To reduce the proportion of commuter parking in off- street car parks (10% aspiration level).
i To keep the total amount of Private Non-Residential (PNR) car parking spaces to a minimum.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 128
i To keep the number of private parking spaces made available for City Centre residents to the minimum consistent with supporting the forecast expansion in City Centre living.
i To provide adequate car parking facilities for the mobility impaired at key locations throughout the City Centre.
i To provide adequate bicycle and Powered Two Wheeler parking throughout the City Centre.
i To monitor car park provision and usage on a quarterly basis up to 2008 and annually thereafter.
i To review and benchmark tariff structures on an annual basis.
i To develop a common approach to car parking provision across Merseyside.
i To develop all parking policies, strategies and action plans on a partnership basis.
As policy 1 states, it is proposed that the 16,500 off street parking cap identified and agreed in the first LTP will remain despite the substantial increase in regeneration and economic activity which is underway in Liverpool. This will be achieved through a combination of the above policies, however the main focus will be on utilising the existing provision rather than providing further provision.
The main focus of the Strategy is focused on reducing the number of contract spaces and changing the tariff structure to reflect the move towards short stay parking for visitors and shoppers. As the City Council only owns 13% of the off-street spaces it will be necessary to create partnerships with private car park operators, whilst controlling the provision provided in new car parks through planning process as car parks are lost to development and new car parks are proposed.
Private Non-residential Car Parking
In order to gain a better understanding of parking both in the City Centre and throughout Merseyside, the partners are currently undertaking a survey to establish the availability and usage of private non-residential car parking. Without an appreciation of the number of private non-residential car parking spaces in existence, possible interventions such as parking
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 129
caps, workplace parking levies and development control measures cannot be investigated or taken forward.
Private Residential Car Parking
As space is now at a premium in the City Centre, many developers are constructing large residential developments with little or no car parking as it is considered that people living in the City Centre can utilise public transport. A study is therefore in progress to gain an understanding of the issues associated with residential car parking. This will involve surveys of private residential parking and also a review of all extant planning permission since 2001, when the first LTP was adopted as policy.
In recognition of the fact that City Centre residents would still like the freedom of owning a car even if they are not using it for commuting purposes, Liverpool City Council in conjunction with TravelWise and developers, are currently developing a pilot car club. Although the pilot study is concentrating within a specific development, it is the City Council’s intention to role this out city wide depending upon uptake.
City Centre Movement Strategy (CCMS)
The importance of the City Centre as perhaps the economic driver of the City Region was recognised in LTP1 and lead to the development of CCMS as a major partnership between the City Council, Merseytravel and Liverpool Vision.
The City Centre Movement Strategy (CCMS) has the following objectives:
i Improve accessibility to the city centre to aid economic regeneration and to provide access for all;
i Create a people-friendly city centre that is safe, clean and attractive for work, shopping, business, tourism and leisure;
i Make best use of the city centre’s key transport assets – the Merseyrail stations, bus facilities, ferries and major car parks;
i Support the improvement of the city centre’s architecture and townscape;
i Ensure that schemes can be funded and implemented.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 130
In this context the new development, the construction of Merseytram, and the new bus facilities within are all key components of city centre accessibility. A critical review is underway to ensure that all the various components are delivered within the LTP2 programme, including the phasing of the northern part of the Merseytram City Centre Loop and the removal of Churchill Way flyover south.
A longer-term view will also be prepared which will draw together European and North American experience to provide a city centre strategy which addresses the need to balance Economic Development (PSDA, Kings Waterfront) with Environmental targets (AQMA, World Heritage status, Capital of Culture). The opportunity to use the Capital of Culture planning as a catalyst for introducing transport proposals will also be documented. All of these elements will also be considered for potential TIF funding. (This is described in Chapter 12).
In order to support the growth of the City Centre within the constraints of the parking cap, to protect the centres World Heritage sites, and address air quality, the provision of a high quality public transport network will be critical. (Section 4.4 set out the development of the single integrated public transport network (SIPTN) for the next LTP.)
Much of the new development in the City Centre has been predicated on the development of Merseytram to provide a major new addition to the capacity of the network. This will be important because of the capacity problems on the City line of Merseyrail. Similarly major work will be required to increase capacity at Central station.
The first LTP set out proposals for the continuing development of the Park and Ride provision. However, the capacity to enhance provision may be constrained by land availability and cost.
(Note need more information on this).
Mention was made in 5.33 of the contribution made by buses to the poor air quality within the City Centre. High quality bus services however remain the single next important element in providing public transport for the City Centre. The LTP’s daughter document setting out the revised Bus Strategy has therefore set out a range of options for the development of the network; but a crucial part will be to drive up quality in a way that will also improve emissions. The powers available through a Quality Control scheme are being examined.
(Note – need more on City Centre?)
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 131
Sustainable Distribution
The scale of the new shopping developments taking place in the City Centre, together with the preceeding construction work will mean that careful consideration is being given to freight movements into and out of the City Centre, as part of the agreed freight strategy (outlined in Section 4.3.3). Already agreed schemes for Edge Lane, together with proposals for Hall Lane are designed to assist with these movements whilst preventing through freight and commercial traffic using the City Centre.
As previously noted, together with the City Centre, John Lennon Airport, the Mersey Ports and the strategic investment areas (SIA’s) are recognised by the sub regional partnership as the key economic drivers. Anticipated economic activity in these areas will potentially increase traffic demand for transport and cause congestion. Ease of movement is essential and the use of rail freight important of these key economic drivers, the LCRDP recognises the Mersey Ports as perhaps the region’s biggest unique selling point.
There are three ports in Merseyside:
i The Port of Liverpool i Birkenhead Docks i Garston Docks.
The Port of Liverpool
The Port of Liverpool is the seventh largest in the UK, it handles nearly 32 million tonnes of cargo per year of which 20m Tonnes(mT) per year is transported by road, rail or water. The remaining 12mT per year being transported by pipelines. The movement of these goods by road equates to 6,500 \HGV movements per day and accounts for 13/14 train paths per day. (Note – More on developments of container port)
Currently there are 6500 HGV movements per day to and from the Port of Liverpool.
Without rail enhancements this is predicted to grow to 8500 per day: +31% but with rail freight enhancements this could be reduced to 8050 per day: +23%
The key routes for port access are the A5036 Core Trunk Road, linking the Seaforth entrance to the M57/58 Motorways and carries around 35,000vpd, including 5000HGV’s, and the A565/A5058 route around Liverpool or onto the East Lancashire Road. This is shown by Map X.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 132
(Note – get map of ports and major access routes).
Both are also important urban routes cross by other strategic transport corridors and pass through residential areas. Journey times on the A5036 are predicted to increase by 26% between 2004 and 2014, with unacceptable delays at key junctions. By 2029, there would be a further doubling of journey times. In addition, road safety remains an issue at junctions along the route, in particular, the Princess Way / Bridge Road roundabout.
From recent public consultation, as part of a major Port Access Study, the adverse impact of road freight movements was the main issue for residents ie Environmental, Safety and Severance concerns. Hence, a key factor to be addressed, if the Port is to achieve projected growth and fully contribute to economic regeneration in the Liverpool City Region and throughout the North West.
In the short term, the Local Authority’s strongly support maximisation of enhancing rail freight opportunities, with the growth in HGV traffic being accommodated within the existing highway network and managed through a Route Management and Mitigation Strategy. Highway measures to be considered include: better management of the road space using ‘intelligent highway’ techniques, restrictions, landscaping noise barriers, quieter road surfaces, encouragement of more sustainable modes for non freight traffic and walking, cycling public transport, awareness initiatives etc.
Demand for additional highway capacity to accommodate increasing freight traffic will be kept under review through the life of LTP 2, in consultation with the Highway Agency, and will also give consideration to proposals such as Sandhills Link in Liverpool.
(Note – will need redraft following HA meeting)
The forecast growth (considering current commodities split) it is estimated that between 6.07 and 8.87mTonnes could be attracted to rail freight by 2016. This would require further 21 train movements per day. Rail freight operators indicate that the operational capacity of the Bootle Branch Freight Line is 16 to 18 trains per day, which equates to a maximum of 5.06mTonnes per year. But to for the rail link to have sufficient capacity for the estimated tonnage at least 21 train movements are required per day.
Therefore there is need to undertake improvements in terms of increasing train paths available and to increase the size of containers which can use the line. A package of measures has
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 133
been proposed by the Merseyside Local Authorities and Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (MDHC) to provide sufficient capacity for the predicted growth over the coming years including:
i Guage enhancements to accommodate 1SO 9’6” Containers (Seaforth to WCML).
i Reinstatement of Olive Mount chord and signalling enhancements. (Bootle Rail Freight Branch onto Liverpool to WCML routes).
It is estimated that these improvements will enable rail freight to increase to the base £6.07m Tonnes growth estimates.
(Note – Need to add in section on Northern Way).
Birkenhead Docks
With the support of Wirral Borough Council, Mersey Docks and Harbour Company are also pursuing the reconnection of the Birkenhead Dock to the rail network.
The current proposal is to reinstate a link from the Dock through to Bidston in two phases:
i Bidston to Duke Street
i Duke Street to Canning Street
Port of Garston
The Port of Garston is the most inland port of the Mersey and comprises a 200 acre dock estate. The majority of traffic originates from the short sea market and it handles 600,000 Tonnes of predominantly dry bulk cargo per annum.
With the shift from coal to industrial dry bulk over recent years new trades are emerging, resulting in increased investment in new facilities and services. The port’s strategy is to capitalise on the potential for short sea shipping and is looking to serve a hinterland extending from Merseyside, Lancashire and Cheshire to the West Midlands.
The Port has excellent rail links and is located adjacent to Freightliner’s inter-modal facility, giving direct rail access to the main rail network through an electrified branch onto the main Liverpool to WCML route.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 134
The Port is 12 kilometres from the M62 at Junction 6 (the Tarbock Interchange), linked by the dual carriageway A561/A562/A5300. Proposed improvements by the Highways Agency to the Tarbock Interchange, estimated to be commenced in 2008/09, will improve journey time reliability to the port.
Traffic management improvements on the A561 have improved movements south, but peak time congestion is an issue on the Silver Jubilee Bridge. Halton Borough Council’s proposed new crossing will provide major benefits.
John Lennon Airport
Liverpool John Lennon Airport has in recent years benefited from significant private sector investment to improve its facilities and in parallel has experienced rapid growth in its passenger throughput. In 2004 its passenger throughput was 3.4 million passengers.
The Airport is a major employer, promotes economic growth and regeneration and provides vital international business and leisure links to Europe. The Airport positively raises the profile and perception of Merseyside.
The Airport’s long term future growth and role as a key regional airport is supported within the Government’s White Paper – The Future of Air Transport (December 2003). The Airport anticipates significant further growth in both its passenger and cargo operations. Annual passenger throughputs of 7.6m in 2010 and 10m in 2016 are forecast.
The Airport Company’s aim is to ensure that it maximises the opportunities for sustainable and inclusive transport access for both passengers and staff.
Schemes such as Liverpool South Parkway, Merseytram Line 3, the Halton Curve reinstatement and the New Mersey Crossing are anticipated to enhance accessibility within South Liverpool and to Liverpool John Lennon Airport.
The need for overall strategic highway capacity improvements to the Speke Boulevard corridor is a matter under current consideration by the Airport, the City Council and other key stakeholders. This consideration process may confirm the need for a new road link (the Eastern Access Road) to be provided between Speke Boulevard and Hale Road (east of the Speke estate). This road would provide overall relief to the Speke Boulevard corridor and provide more direct access to the
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 135
Airport. The funding and delivery of this road are key future considerations.
(Note – Statement from LCC needed).
The Airport works closely with its Airport Transport Forum in seeking to meet its surface access aims through the Airport’s Surface Access Strategy (ASAS) and Staff Travel Plan. In 2004 the Airport Company published its fourth edition of its ASAS and staff travel plan – ‘The Greener Ticket to Ride’.
The ASAS includes targets for passenger modal shift and reducing the number of unaccompanied car journeys by staff. The targets are as follows:
YEAR 2000 (1) 2002 2003 (5) 2005 2008 (2 Survey Target Survey Target Target ------EMPLOYEES single private 63% 58% 67% 55% 50% car use
% change [-] [-5%] [+4%] [-8%] [-13%] ------
YEAR 2000 (1) 2002 2002 (6) 2003 (4) 2005 2008(2) Survey Target Survey Survey Target Target ------PASSENGERS final mode 4.5% 6% 9% 10.05% 10% 12% public transport (3) use
% change [ - ] [+1.5%] [+4.5%] [+5.6%] [+5.5%] [+7.5%] ------Notes
(1) - Based upon 1999 CAA Passenger Survey and 2000 Employee Survey. (2) - 2008 figures assume significantly enhanced bus services to the Airport and Liverpool South Parkway being operational and serving the Airport from the end of 2005 onwards. (3) - Public Transport includes bus/coach use only. (4) - 2003 Full Year Civil Aviation Authority Survey (5) - Airport’s Staff Travel Survey (6) - Airport’s Passenger Survey – Summer 2002
It is notable that the 2005 target for passenger modal spilt was achieved in 2003 (source: 2003 CAA Airport passenger survey) – this demonstrates that progress is being made to improve public transport facilities, services and patronage.
Targets for 2011 and 2016 will be established by the Airport Transport Forum in November 2005.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 136
Another important issue is to ensure that efforts to promote modal shift and sustainable access to the airport are not prejudiced or undermined by the establishment of off-site airport car parks which do not accord with the prevailing planning policy and the ASAS. It is crucial that local planning policy supports this approach.
Air Freight
Liverpool John Lennon Airport handles some 40,000 tonnes of air freight per year and in terms of cargo handled is ranked second in Northern England.
The Strategic Investment Areas (SIAs)
There are seven SIAs on Merseyside. (These were shown on Map X together with other key locations identified by the LCRDP and SWDA).
The Merseyside District Authorities, Merseytravel and the Highway Agency entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate a partnership approach to the control of developments relating to economic regeneration proposals in the Merseyside Objective One Strategic Investment Areas.
A framework for assessing the impacts of development proposals was agreed and how required multi-modal packages of transport improvements to facilitate the developments would be delivered.
To assist in the transport assessments a SIA Transport Impact Assessment Model was developed. This spreadsheet model incorporating land use and traffic data and public transport accessibility indices, has been used to guide the development of improvements to the transport networks.
The partners have agreed that the model should be updated to take account of completed and revised development and network improvements. The partners will undertake an analysis of the key freight routes to identify any areas requiring further investigation.
(Note – Need facts and figures on this).
These results will guide the inclusion of potential schemes in the Full Second Local Transport Plan submission.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 137
Strategic Road Freight Network
The following sites on the Strategic Road Freight Network have been identified or are under consideration with regard to improvement within the timescale of LTP2:
(i) M57/M58/A5036 Switch Island Junction.
Phase 2 improvements to increase capacity programmed to commence in June 2005.
(ii) M62/M57/A5300 Tarbock Interchange
Capacity improvements programmed to commence in 2008/09.
(iii) M53 Bidston Moss Viaduct
Main through carriageway over viaduct linking M53 with Wallasey Tunnel subject to a 3 tonne weight restriction. Consideration of proposals to permit lifting of restriction in progress.
(iv) A565 Derby Road Improvement
Completion of upgrading to route between A5036 Seaforth roundabout and Leeds Street junction in Liverpool Inner Ring road.
Intelligent Transport Systems
Liverpool City Council has commissioned a study to investigate the requirements for an integrated ITS Strategy for Liverpool and to identify potential solutions which contribute to the shared priority areas. It has been identified that the ITS strategy will contribute greatly to congestion and air quality priority areas. This Intelligent transport system will allow vehicle flows to be changed to take into account areas that are congested and locations where pollution exceeds national acceptable limits.
The study methodology has been adapted from the EU ITS City Pioneers approach. This is a recognised approach which provides a generic approach to planning for the implementation of ITS, mainly for urban areas. The workpackages included are amongst others – detailed stakeholder consultation, a transport inventory, the creation of a shared vision for ITS in the City, identifying a ITS package and finally identifying a deployment plan to implement the strategy.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 138
The timescales for completion of the study area are as follows: (Note – Will fill in after meeting on 13th – What happened?)
Insert VMS/EMS
Tunnel VMS Signing to be inserted by Peter Arch.
Note – Do we need to add in something on Joe Smith’s LTC piece?
The promotion of rail freight is however key to accommodating expected growth in freight whilst trying to mitigate any effects on local communities which the road freight might pass. There are a number of key rail improvements which are included in the Regional Spatial Strategy including the reinstatement of the Olive Mount Curve and the Birkenhead Docks scheme which will all help to increase the number of train paths available. These improvements coupled with proposed gauge improvement will help to promote rail freight as available alternative. Within the industry there is a strong concensus that the working time directive will increase road haulage industry costs while it could also impact upon the location of warehousing and distribution facilities. It could also increase daytime HGV traffic and light goods traffic more generally which could impact congestion in and around Merseyside. One can also conclude that the likely effects of the directive as previously mentioned could also make rail freight a more attractive alternative.
In this regard Merseyside LTP partners are concerned about the ability or willingness of the rail industry to increase local rail freight capacity as noted the Northern Way initiative may be an important element in realising ?… for transfer of freight to rail, which will not only address issues of congestion, but assist with addressing other shared priorities of air quality, quality of life and road safety.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 139
6. The Shared Priorities: Air Quality
TravelWise
Liverpool has designated two AQMAs and TravelWise initiatives are embedded in the AQMPs which form part of the LTP. Travel Plans feature strongly and will be supported by individualised marketing, car clubs and co-ordinated campaigns including Car Free Day, In Town Without My Car linked to liveability of the city. Consideration is being given to whether a workplace parking levy for those organisations which provide parking but have not produced a travel plan, may be a suitable measure for AQMAs.
Less locally, the TravelWise initiative contributes to targets to reduce CO2 and the contribution of transport to global warming. By reducing unnecessary and short journeys made by car, the increasing contribution of traffic growth can be addressed.
Air Quality Management Areas
6.1 The preceding chapter has already stated that Merseyside is not yet experiencing levels of congestion noted in competitor cities. However Liverpool does suffer from poor air quality as a direct result of road transport. Liverpool has now declared two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) under Section 85 of the Environment Act 1995. One AQMA covers the whole of the city centre and the other the M62 motorway approaches to the city. Nitrogen dioxide levels are set to exceed the annual average objective standard for 2005 in these areas.
6.2 An Air Quality Action Plan has been devised with a variety of packages proposed to bring about improved air quality in Liverpool. These packages are far reaching and range from vehicle emission reductions for example the development of a low emission zone, encouraging the use of alternative modes through travel plans to the dissemination of information on air quality and what businesses and the public can do to bring about improved air quality in the city.
Establishing a Low Emission Zone as part of the AQAP, in Liverpool will involve undertaking a feasibility study. If this should prove viable, a Low Emission Zone could involve restricting access to certain areas of the city for older or more polluting vehicles. Poor air quality in Liverpool is mainly attributed to HDVs and LDVs, as a result a Low Emission Zone may also be coupled with Quality Bus Contracts to ensure buses entering LEZs meet minimum standards in terms engine Euro Standards for emissions, fares, accessibility etc, all of which aim to increase bus patronage and will have positive effects on relieving congestion
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 140
The air quality action plan is undergoing consultation and will be appended to the full LTP2 document.
In addition, there are a number of promotional and marketing projects which bring together themes of the LTP2 shared priorities. For example participation in European projects such as Clean Accessible Transport for Community Health, working with Merseytravel partners on Green Transport Festival, Bike Week, Walk to School Week and In town Without my Car each year all help to spread the message of alternative modes of transport, reducing air pollution and congestion and having positive health effects for individuals.
Best Practice – The Catch Initiative
Over recent decades the air quality within many European towns and cities has worsened considerably, making these urban spaces less attractive to live, work and socialise in. This is no exception in Liverpool, where the city centre has been declared an Air Quality Management Area. It is known that road transport is a major source of this air pollution, with HGVs and buses contributing proportionally more in the city core.
Merseytravel and Liverpool City Council (along with Arriva Northwest and Wales Ltd) are partners in a project known as CATCH (Clean Accessible Transport for Community Health), which is funded through the EC’s Life-Environment Programme. It is a major effort by the partners to place environmental considerations at the heart of the development of transport and economic regeneration plans for Liverpool. The project has provided a specific environmental focus in order to ensure that impacts of new development on air quality are minimised.
As part of the project, Merseytravel introduced a new city centre shuttle service in February 2005. The buses used on the service are brand new diesel-electric hybrids, able to operate in zero-emission mode for the majority of the route. Even when not in zero-emission mode, the vehicles are more fuel-efficient than comparable conventional buses, and therefore emit less harmful pollutants. The fleet of six is the first hybrid fleet to operate commercially in the UK. The route links a number of commercial and residential areas with transport interchanges and places of education, all within the city centre Air Quality Management Area. The chosen route represents areas that were previously poorly served by public transport. Since the start of the service the patronage levels have continued to rise. If the bus delivers its full potential in terms of reduced pollution levels as well as overall performance, then hybrids may become a standard specification in future.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 141
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 142
Examples of Best Practice
Air Quality
Issues and problems
Existing baseline information (maps of indicative pollution concentrations for nitrogen dioxide and particles) from SEA baseline.
Summary of results from review and assessment process (first round) and from Updated Screening Assessments (2nd round).
Acknowledgement and identification of AQMAs – ie current problems.
Future problems – related to congestion ‘hot-spots’ and possible further AQMAs. Longer term – background of increasing traffic growth, added to by traffic generated by regeneration initiatives and new developments.
Air quality monitoring remains variable in terms of equipment, locations and investment.
Policy Solutions
Statutory requirement to prepare and implement Air Quality Action Plan for AQMAs.
Reduce congestion and reduce traffic volumes.
Promote sustainable travel options.
Promote use of cleaner vehicles – bus fleet and LA fleets.
Planning conditions on new developments – eg for travel plans etc.
Indicative Programme
Measures/schemes proposed in AQAP and identified as feasible/achievable.
Traffic management measures to reduce congestion (Congestion group).
Measures to increase sustainable travel modes (TravelWise programme).
Quality Bus Contract – including engine standards for buses.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 143
Transfer of freight to rail – gauge improvements/Olive Mount Chord, etc.
Review and assessment process – including further air quality modelling of identified congestion ‘hot spots’ and areas with high traffic growth predictions.
Maintenance of Merseyside emissions inventory – to estimate transport contribution to overall pollutant emissions.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 144
7. The Shared Priorities: Accessibility
Merseyside’s pilot of the Access to Healthcare programme identified the strong role for Travel Plans in delivering accessibility assessments and improvements at major health sites. This applies equally to large employers and education sites and is an approach being used across these sectors to ensure maximum efficiency in raising and addressing access issues. In this way the TravelWise programme is an integral element of Merseyside’s Access strategy and is working at all levels to improve access through physical improvements at sites, promotion of hospital costs schemes, information provision and identification of service delivery issues as well as public transport considerations. In working closely with Merseyside’s Access Officer, a strategic approach to improving access has been managed with a practical mechanism for delivery at the local level.
The TravelWise initiative will continue to integrate travel plan work with the development control process and contribute to the partners developing a common SPD on Access and transport for Merseyside. This will ensure that consistent standards are being applied to new developments to ensure they are occurring in the most suitable locations and provide a choice of access by all modes, making particular provision for sustainable transport and considering the need to manage traffic growth. A draft of the SPD is presented as part of the Local Transport Plan and is being consulted on as part of this strategy and developing LDFs.
The Access Plan sets out:-
i What the accessibility issues for Merseyside are. i Where barriers to accessing services exist. i How the Access Plan fits with key stakeholders respective agendas. i The approach to be adopted to deal with specific accessibility problems. i Identification of potential funding streams. i Priorities and suggestions for joint working with key stakeholders to overcome accessibility problems.
will also set out the key role of travel planning through the Merseyside TravelWise campaign, links with the bus strategy and links with TravelSafe. Vision and Objectives for the Merseyside Access Plan
The vision for the Merseyside accessibility strategy is to promote social inclusion by overcoming those barriers which impact on individuals’ ability to access job opportunities and other essential public services that they need.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 145
This will be achieved by working with key stakeholders to implement specific accessibility related transport schemes and initiatives, integrating accessibility considerations into the wider the transport agenda and ensuring that accessibility considerations are taken into account by partners in their policy and scheme delivery.
While Merseytravel will be the lead authority in developing the Merseyside Accessibility Strategy, the 5 Merseyside local authorities have an important role to play in improving accessibility by:
i Implementing specific accessibility-related transport schemes and initiatives through planning, delivering and managing the local public transport, highways, cycle, footway and rights of way networks; i Integrating and mainstreaming accessibility considerations into their wider transport strategies, policies and programmes; i Integrating and mainstreaming accessibility objectives across the planning and delivery of the authority's wider policy areas and within the corporate centre; and i Influencing partners' policy and scheme delivery so that accessibility considerations are taken into account.
There is also a need to work with neighbouring authorities in developing the strategy as there are significant cross boundary accessibility issues in particular for access to employment and training, healthcare and education.
Availability and Physical Accessibility of Transport
Many people on Merseyside find using public transport difficult. Currently, xx% of the bus fleet is fully accessibile and the use of an accessible vehicle on a quality corridor cannot be guranteed and there are still a number of Merseyrail stations that have accessibility problems.
The Cost of Transport
The relatively high cost of public transport compared to costs for the private car is a significant barrier to many people (fig x). Public transport fares are amongst the highest in the country (fig x). consultation showed that Saveaways and concessionary passes were the most popular tickets for Pathways residents. However these tickets preclude peak time travel, and concessionary passes are only available to people over 60 years. Therefore these passes do not provide a great amount of assistance to the groups of people who are finding travel costs a barrier.
Merseytravel’s Tracking Surveys shows that a single/return ticket bought from the driver is by far the most common method of payment for journeys on public transport in Merseyside. Lack of integration and
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 146
co-ordination will mean that this will increase further if the passenger is required to interchange on their journey.
Safety and Security Concerns
Concerns for personal security particularly during the hours of darkness, and amongst women represent a real barrier that loses about 12% of potential bus trips per year. The TravelSafe programme jointly managed by Merseytravel, operators and Police will be a crucial element in the Accessibility Strategy. Better information and analysis will help target problem areas more effectively from early 2005.
Lack of Information and Limited Travel Horizons
A study by Regeneris to examine where job creation was most likely within Merseyside and the wider region has identified an uneven distribution of new employment growth across Merseyside, with growth being concentrated within or around certain selected Strategic Investment Areas. In view of their limited “travel horizons” Pathways residents living close to certain SIAs where job creation projections will be slower to realise will need to travel further afield for employment and training opportunities.
For example Wirral Pathways residents will continue to rely on opportunities being created outside the area in Deeside and Cheshire, and St. Helens Pathways residents will increasingly be drawn to employment opportunities being created in the Warrington area. This raises particular challenges in terms of providing realistic, affordable and convenient transport choices.
Car Ownership
All areas within Merseyside have a level of car ownership lower than the national average. The lowest level is in Liverpool with 51.7% and the highest level is in Wirral where 70% of households own at least one car.
The implications for this are two fold. Merseyside has a high dependency on public transport comparative to many areas. However, increasing prosperity will lead to increasing car ownership and congestion, unless measures are put in place to address this.
Growth in driving licence holding shows an emerging trend which could have long term implications for public transport patronage, as there is an increase in ‘traditional’ bus users amongst women and young people having driving licences.
The Housing Market Renewal Initiative - ‘New Heartlands’ brings new opportunities to areas of low housing demand and abandonment in parts of inner Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral. £90 million has been
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 147
awarded to Merseyside up to 2006, with a total investment package of £2.28 billion envisaged over 15 year period.
Improving the liveability of Liverpool and the wider Merseyside area is also a priority, to develop vibrant, attractive and balanced neighbourhoods. Coupled with the New Heartlands project is Liverpool’s aspiration for 85% of new homes to be constructed on previously developed land.
Liverpool John Lennon Airport - The airport is currently handling over 3 million passengers per annum, which could grow to over 12 million by 2030. This could support a workforce of 11,000 people (based on an estimation of 1,000 jobs per 1 million passengers), meaning that the airport represents major economic pole.
The Impact on Travel
It is apparent that in the continued regeneration for Merseyside will result in additional trips by all modes. This will arise both from a natural increase in car ownership above the current level of 60% as GDP increases.
It will also arise as a consequence of additional trips into the city centre and between established residential areas and other areas of economic growth.
However, the consultants are also predicting strong growth outside Merseyside’s boundaries, which will impact upon the take-up of employment land within Merseyside. For example, growth is anticipated to be limited on the Wirral International Business Park, with employment ‘hotpots’ forecast instead in Chester and Deeside. This, therefore, creates a continued need to ensure that accessibility improvements are provided, to link Pathways areas of greatest need with new employment opportunities.
Economic development outside Merseyside’s boundaries
Growth in the regionally significant employment areas located outside Merseyside (such as. Omega in Warrington, Chester and Deeside in North Wales), coupled with a potentially greater mass of the population living within the urban core in particular, is likely to potentially attract ‘reverse’ commuting journeys from Merseyside to these outlying areas – in effect, the exportation of labour from Merseyside.
Strategic Accessibility Assessment
A Strategic Mapping Audit using the Accession software tool has been undertaken across Merseyside to determine levels of accessibility to employment sites, hospitals, GP’s surgeries, schools, FE colleges and major district centres for shopping. In parallel to this, an exercise is
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 148
also underway to review existing local evidence of Merseytravel, the local authorities and other partners to determine accessibility needs. The purpose of this exercise is to address accessibility issues in a more systematic and objective manner and assist with the identification of priorities for targeting action. This involves:
i Strategic Mapping Audits for the main destination types – hospitals, GP’s, education facilities, work place and shops.
i The establishment of Strategic Accessibility Partnerships (SAPs) around accessibility themes, to consider the findings of the audit and to review existing knowledge on accessibility issues. These partnerships will include partners with both policy development and delivery roles.
i Prioritising areas, groups and issues for further action.
SAPs are currently being established for access to health, employment and education to review the findings of the audit..
From work undertaken to date, the initial focus of the access plan will be on the 38 Merseyside Pathways areas plus those areas of Merseyside that are eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal Funding and access to jobs is emerging as the top priority for further action.
(a) Issues and problems. (b) Policy solutions. (c) Strategies. (d) Indicative programmes to tackle the problem.
Best Practice - The Mersey-Dee Alliance Workwise Initiative
Mersey Dee Alliance Accessibility Strategy - Summary
The Mersey Dee Alliance Accessibility Strategy and Implementation Plan will feed into both the second Local Transport Plan and Accessibility Plans for Cheshire and Merseytravel. These Plans will provide the main focus of cross boundary accessibility work started by the Mersey Dee Alliance. The Mersey Dee Alliance, (MDA), was born out of the recognition by council leaders and members of Cheshire, Chester, Ellesmere Port & Neston and Wirral local authorities and the former CEWTEC that businesses and communities wished to work together within the travel to work area to facilitate coherent economic, social and environmental opportunities. The Alliance is a recognised travel to work and travel to learn area with a population of 530,000. All partners realised that political boundaries, which engender separate and isolated working, meant that advantages arising from economies of scale, avoidance of
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 149
duplication and the spreading of best practice could be missed.
The MDA area covers four Local Authority areas – Wirral, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Chester and parts of Cheshire. There is considerable movement from the MDA area to and from Liverpool, and to areas of employment as the Deeside Development Zone in Flintshire.
The Mersey Dee Alliance is influenced by three other sub regional agendas; The Cheshire and Warrington Sub-regional Economic Strategy, the West Cheshire – North East Wales Sub – Regional Study and the Merseyside Sub-Regional Strategy.
The ‘Prospects for West Cheshire and Wirral – Skills Scenarios 2002 – 2006 forecast that the MDA and surrounding area will gain 2,000 net jobs during this period with the emphasis being in the service industry.
The role of the MDA Transport Group is to implement a strategy to reduce problems of social exclusion relating to accessibility and provision of passenger transport services in the area.
A detailed study of transport accessibility in the MDA area focused on accessibility to employment sites from 16 target wards all included in the 20% most deprived wards in the Index of Multiple Deprivation. The product of the research was an in-depth analysis of travel opportunities, travel behaviour, employment, training opportunities and the labour market. This analysis informed the development of an action plan to address accessibility in the area.
Workwise Programme
A key element of the action plan centred around the establishment of a ‘Workwise’ programme for the MDA area to address both actual and perceived transport barriers to reducing ‘Worklessness’ in the 16 target wards.
A Workwise Officer was appointed and an implementation programme was agreed by the MDA in March 2005. The programme is built around the following initiatives and will be carried out over the period 2005 – 2007.
i Improving Information i Scooter Commuter scheme i Mersey Dee Alliance Travel Card i Access to rail
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 150
i Workplace Travel Plans i Working with employers i Access to education i Accessibility Planning
The Workwise Programme will involve close partnership working with members of the Transport Group and other MDA groups.
Neighbourhood Travel Team
The Neighbourhood Travel Team (NTT) was an initiative set up in June 2003 to employ people who have been out of the labour market for 12 months or longer on temporary through an Intermediate Labour Market programme. Employees are given assistance with key skills such as customer service, interviewing techniques, time-keeping and basic IT. The temporary contract enables them to then seek permanent employment complete with current work history and reference.
The Neighbourhood Travel Team provide personal travel plans to residents of the 16 target wards to travel information to enable residents attend interviews, jobs and training outside their local community, therefore reducing social exclusion.
The Neighbourhood Travel Team will form a value part of the Workwise Initiative through providing personal delivery of the Workwise Initiatives across the Mersey Dee Alliance area.
Monitoring and evaluating
The outcomes of the Workwise Programme will be reported to the Mersey Dee Alliance members on an annual basis. At the end of the two year programme a review of the success of the initiatives will be undertaken to inform the best way in which to address access to employment in the Mersey Dee Alliance area.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 151
8. The Shared Priorities: Road safety
Key Issues
8.1 Figure ? shows the location of child KSI’s for 2004. Whilst child accidents are continuing to decline it is important to continue the successful work in this area to meet the LTP target of 50% reduction in child KSI rates by 2011.
Road Safety in Merseyside
The number of children killed or seriously injured on the roads of Merseyside is successfully responding to our programmes and is down in line with our target.
8.2 Liverpool City has the highest rate of people killed or seriously injured in Merseyside, it also has a higher rate (77 per 100,000) than Greater London (69 per 100,000). The Merseyside Road Safety LTP Task Group have studied the accident data for the area over time and the findings indicate that KSI rates (adult and child) have stopped declining at previous rates and levelled off in the last couple of years. More specifically adult KSI rates have risen beyond the LTP trajectories.
The overall number of people killed or seriously injured is not reducing in line with our target. The downward trend in child casualties is being offset by rises in some groups of adult casualties.
8.3 In 2004 the Police recorded over 7000 people injured on the roads of Merseyside. Each day, two people are killed or seriously injured, and there are few families in the area that have not suffered from the consequence of a road traffic accident.
Road Casualties in areas of Deprivation 8.4 The final report of the Social Exclusion Unit showed that across the country there were higher numbers of children injured on roads in areas of high deprivation. In 2000, Merseyside’s first LTP had also noted higher risk to child pedestrians in such areas. 55% of the children of Merseyside live in wards which are within the 10% most deprived in the country. 70% of all injuries to children on the roads of Merseyside in the five year base period (1994-1998) were found to have occurred within the same wards.
8.5 In response, extensive programmes of engineering and education were introduced in each of the districts of Merseyside to tackle this issue. To reflect its importance and the need to eliminate the excess, the partners agreed on a target to reduce SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 152
the number of children killed or seriously injured by 55% by 2010.
8.6 The result has been to bring about a substantial reduction in such casualties. Compared with the number recorded in the base period, there has been a 30% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured, which is in line with that required to meet the 2010 target. Publication of the revised estimates of multiple deprivation in 2004 have allowed us to improve the assessment of the effects of our programmes. This shows a reduction of x% in the areas of greatest deprivation.
Note – This figure needs confirming.
Reduction in Child Pedestrian KSIs
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 Child KSI Accidents 100 50 0 1994-98 2000-04 1994-98 2000-04 In Most Deprived SOAs Rest of Merseyside
Best Practice
Neighbourhood Road Safety Initiative in North Liverpool In 2004, Liverpool City Council was awarded £1m of special grant from the DfT to implement Road Safety initiatives in the North Liverpool Partnership Area in 2004/05 and 2005/06. This level of funding has allowed a wide range of innovative approaches to be adopted in partnership with the local community. As well as a range of engineering measures, education and training initiatives have included Roads Safety Clubs, the Total In-car Safety plan, Walk-to-School projects and a
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 153
programme of action to address Car Offenders. The North Area of Liverpool was chosen for this treatment because of the extreme levels of casualty and deprivation, but this initiative has led to the production of resources and developments that are having wider application across the City. As in the earlier example of Kerbcraft, sustaining the benefits in later years does present a considerable challenge.
Best Practice: Production of VIDEO for Use in Schools to generate debate among 13 – 15 year olds.
Best Practice - Our Walk to School
The ‘Our walk to School’ initiative is one of four projects funded through the Dft’s ‘Neighbourhood Road Safety Initiative’. It involves local school children (Yr 5) filming and mapping their walk to school and highlighting the road safety issues that their local community face on a daily basis.
A maximum of 15 schools in North Liverpool (and more recently 4 schools in Kensington funded through Neighbourhood Renewal Fund) have joined the project. They will be trained in digital video editing, web page design and map making.
Our partners in these initiatives are:
i John Moore’s University (Cartography Department and the International Centre for Digital Content) who provide a comprehensive 3 day training course for teachers involved in the project.
i Children’s University who accredit the ‘Filming Our walk to School’ and ‘Mapping Our walk to School’ modules.
i Kensington New deal who are considering match funding the NRF ‘Our Walk to School’ in their area
i River Media who have provided post production editing of the pupils films
i Sustrans and Travelwise who have been interested in the potential for this project to deliver School travel Plans
i Extended Schools who would like this project to be developed across the city as an out of school activity
The project will equip the children with the skills necessary to identify potential road safety hazards and to then identify possible solutions ranging from traffic calming and pedestrian crossings to cycle training
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 154
and enforcement campaigns. Their suggestions will be considered by road safety officers who will then provide the appropriate solutions from the remaining funds. The ‘Our Walk to School’ project allows communities to take ownership and responsibility for solutions to their own particular urban road safety issues. This allows visible regeneration in areas of depravation to become a reality.
Note from Pete Molyneux
Changes in the pattern of Adult Casualties 8.7 Overall there has been a small reduction in the average number of adult casualties since the base period (620 per year for 2000- 2004 compared with 637 during 1994-1998, a reduction of 17). However, this fell far short of our milestone target which sought a reduction of 79 by 2000-2004, to be in line with our 2010 target for this sector.
8.8 During this period overall Adult Pedestrian Casualties and Adult Cycling Casualties have reduced in line with targets, but these have been almost completely offset by increases in fatal or serious casualties to adults in motorised vehicles.
Histograms showing
Chart from Barbara White
1994-98 2000-04 1994-98 2000-04 1994-98 2000-04 1994-1998
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 155
2000-04 Adult Pedestrians Adult Cyclists Adult Motor Cyclists Adult in Car & other Veh
Increase in Motor Cycle Casualties 8.9 Although the popularity of motor cycling appears to vary between the districts, an increase in the number of casualties has been recorded to adults using motor cycles in all districts, at all times of day and across all age groups, although with a bias towards younger adults. This is suggestive of a simple increase in levels of use. (Note: MIS are preparing estimates of changes in TWMV usage between relevant dates. There may be more to say here if this does not account for the increase in casualties). In 1994-98 the number of people killed or seriously injured on motorcycles in Merseyside represented 9% of all such casualties. By 2000-04 this accounted for 14% of the total. The partners are unlikely to meet the target for reduction in the total number of people killed or seriously injured without bringing about a reduction here.
Note: the efforts so far are as follows:…Dave Rees to provide TEXT. 150 words please.
8.10
Increase in In-car Casualties 8.11 There has been a small overall increase in the number of adults fatally or seriously injured in cars, rather than a reduction of around 15% which would have been required to be in line with the target. However, within this there has been a significant
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 156
increase in the period 9pm to 6am. The increase is most acute among male casualties aged 29 or less, tailing off with increasing age.
8.12 Traffic is very light during this nine-hour period with only 10% of the daily flow but around 30% of all fatal and serious casualties. Indeed, the risk of fatal or serious injury during the nine-hour period at weekends is more than ten times the off-peak daytime risk level. We have noted patterns in these casualties, which tie in with the late-night entertainment activity in the area. Pre- midnight pub hours predominate in rural areas and centres away from the City. Post midnight club hours predominate in club and student areas. But most striking is the high occurrence of both types at the heart of some of the poorest areas. Further in- depth investigation is being made into of a sample of specific accidents from this group.
8.13 Almost all of these crashes show the characteristics of excessive speed. The Merseyside partners are working closely with the Police, who are showing great interest in these findings with a view to intensifying and restructuring their enforcement plans, always taking into account that two-thirds of speed related casualties still occur during the extended day.
Note: refer back to paragraph 8.33 and say more on Police partnership.
Casualties in Rural Areas 8.14 Around half of Merseyside is rural, although most is in close proximity to urban areas. The reduction in serious casualties in these areas has been less than that in the urban areas and there is scope for the management of excessive speed in addition to that through villages. In rural areas away from villages, limitations in forward visibility are often not taken into account in setting speed limits. There is a tendency for drivers to use the speed limit as the preferred speed rather than an upper limit, which can be an issue where the national limit is in place. An increased emphasis in defensive driving (including during driving tuition) may help here, backed-up by increased targeted enforcement as described elsewhere.
Changes in Slight Casualties
8.15 Between the mid 1980s and the mid 1990s, the number of slight casualties recorded, rose far in excess of the increase in traffic levels or indeed the levels of risk. The conclusion was reached that there was an increased propensity to report injury. The nature and incidence of these casualties suggested that it was
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 157
probably associated with the availability of compensation. In the last few years Merseyside Police have changed the rules under which slight injuries are recorded. In particular, late reporting of injury is discouraged. The effect on overall reporting levels has been dramatic. However, future trends and target setting based on slight casualties needs particular care. A method is proposed which looks back to the mid 1980s, takes into account traffic growth and applies casualty reduction levels applicable to those of greater severity. It is on this basis that revised targets for slight casualties are proposed.
Results of Public Consultation
8.16 A lack of acknowledgement among the general public about the scale of road safety problems is reflected in the low score received by this topic throughout our public consultation. This should not be a surprise. Raising awareness of the problem and sustaining it in an appropriate manner has always presented a problem for road safety professionals. More recently, the need to trumpet success in a performance-based culture has been seen to sit uneasily alongside the need for highway authorities and the police to constantly reinforce the dangers to the public arising on the highway network. There is much about road safety that is counter-intuitive. The greatest danger often lurks in those places that feel safest, where people are off-guard. Most road-users adjust their behaviour according to their perception of the dangers that they face. Improving the accuracy of that perception is now seen to be of the highest priority. Successful performance is judged according to whether we have delivered to the public what they want. In this context, raising the public’s awareness of the problem is crucial to deliver the safer roads that we all deserve.
The Road Safety Strategy for Merseyside
8.17 The partners have prepared a draft Road Safety Strategy for Merseyside. This includes a Casualty Report, which analyses the strategic issues as set out in the LTP. It identifies newly arising local threats and proposes additional areas where programmes and measures are required.
8.18 The Road Safety Strategy for Merseyside has two main themes: first it seeks to sustain our success in reducing child casualties which have been particularly numerous in the more deprived areas; second it proposes additional programmes to combat the newer and rising threats to adults, where younger adults are found to be especially at risk.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 158
8.19 Previous road safety work has focused on deprived areas which has significantly reduced child KSI’s. The latest rise in adult KSI’s is focused on the 16-29 age range in Liverpool and the Wirral is believed to be the result of regeneration. More detailed research is being commissioned on this latest finding.
8.20 The outcomes of this research has significant implications for future joint working between Road Safety and TravelWise. Previous messages and interventions used will have to be focused at this new market of 16-29 year olds with money to spend.
(This is described more fully in paragraph ?)
8.21 A national perspective is gained by comparing performance with the rest of the country, and by addressing other nationally identified issues, as set out in Central Government guidance, which are examined in the Merseyside context, to provide an appropriate response.
8.22 The Strategy formulates programmes and partnerships for future work that will be necessary to deliver the casualty reduction. It identifies budgetary requirements and value-for-money. It examines casualty savings that can be expected from following good practice in other areas of the Transport Programme and elsewhere in the wider sphere. Finally, it examines the crucial issues of perception and behavioural change that will be necessary to bring about the scale of reduction sought. It refreshes future forecasts and suggests additional milestone indicators for monitoring purposes to ensure that with proper feedback mechanisms, the headline indicator targets are met. This is our Business Plan for Casualty Reduction.
8.23 Links with other transport programmes
Any changes made to the highway system can affect the levels of risk. The now familiar practice of Safety Audit attempts to avoid the unwitting introduction of hazards in all new designs that vary the functionality or appearance of the highway. On the other side of the coin, there is a potential safety bonus from any improvement where there has been a history of casualties. The Road Safety Planning Group is engaging with staff the other programme areas to ensure that added value by the use of collision data is being taken, and also to attempt to quantify the extent of benefit so derived.
8.24 Traffic Calming and other Local Safety Schemes based on in- depth analysis have played an important part in the success so far. Another major impact has been in the area of child
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 159
pedestrian assessment and training mainly through Kerbcraft Pilot.
8.25 Although further traffic calming could be introduced in the next few years, it is likely that there will be fewer opportunities in the future for such high levels of child casualty reduction from such schemes. A significant challenge to this target lies in the need to gain revenue support to enable the child pedestrian training initiatives to continue when the special DfT funding for the Kerbcraft Pilot comes to an end. A number of creative approaches to this are under consideration such as the use of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding where this is appropriate and available.
8.26 Further Action in to reduce Child Casualties The reduction in child pedestrian casualties has occurred in those groups that have received the most attention, namely those from the youngest ages up to eleven years. Between 1994-98 and 2000-2004, casualties among older children (aged 12-15) as pedestrians have not reduced. Similarly, although less numerous, the number of children of all ages killed or seriously injured in motor vehicles has not reduced in this period.
8.27 Research into these types of casualty has led to the development of new resources and campaigns aimed at encouraging less risky behaviour as pedestrians and car passengers. These address problems that can arise from lack of attention on the road, or lack of use of seatbelt restraint within vehicles.
8.28 Whilst giving special attention to the above specific types of child pedestrian casualty where particular action is required, the partners believe that there is useful road safety advice for all children at every stage of development because casualties are still too high among children. Programmes are in place for each year in the child’s life, and these are reviewed and reconsidered in the light of local and national analysis each year. An area under development at present is centred on pre-driver training which anticipates some of the behavioural issues identified in young adults in the next section.
8.29 Safety is an integral part of the TravelWise initiative. The School Travel Plan programme ensures that safety and sustainability are addressed as a coherent package. The Travel plan programme has not only worked in more affluent communities to reduce car use, but in more deprived communities to address
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 160
safety issues in recognition of the disproportionate number of child casualties in more deprived communities.
8.30 The Merseyside partners have also recognised the key role for cycle training delivery in achieving the aims of the Road Safety and Cycling strategies. The partners are now pursuing innovative methods for delivering an enhanced cycle training package to National Standards across the Merseyside area. (more if can get agreement).
8.31
8.32
8.33 The partnership between the highway authorities on Merseyside and the Police is strong, as is their joint commitment to tackling this problem and we believe that the focused programmes now proposed, enhanced by raising awareness of the public based on sound analysis, will bring the partners back on target by 2010.
Merseyside Road Safety Camera Partnership The Merseyside Partnership went live in April 2005. This will play an important part in the overall pattern of enforcement, which is directed entirely at reducing road casualties. As in other enforcement camera partnerships across the country, all of the recouped fines income is reinvested in the service.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 161
9. Maintaining the Quality of Life
(a) Issues and problems. (b) Policy solutions. (c) Strategies. (d) Indicative programmes to tackle the problem.
Noise
Issues and problems
Existing baseline information – taken from Merseyside Noise Study – summary of main findings and implications of Noise Study
International and national context for noise management – European Noise Directive (END), National Ambient Noise Strategy
Perceptions of noise – especially traffic noise
Noise from construction/highway maintenance works
Aircraft noise – in context of proposed LJLA expansion
Policy solutions
Development of Merseyside Noise Strategy – in accordance with Defra proposals for meeting END requirements
Merseyside wide code of practice for highway works
Use of appropriate highway surfacing materials
Noise mitigation schemes for specific localised problems
Sustainability appraisal for LTP schemes
Indicative programme
Development of Merseyside Noise Strategy – extent and timing of work largely dependent on Defra, e.g. starting with Defra funded road noise mapping project, and further Defra led work relating to implementation of END.
Liaise with and co-operate with Defra on joint approach to strategy development.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 162
Prepare and adopt Merseyside code of practice for management of highway works
Evaluate the effectiveness of different noise mitigation measures – e.g. surfacing, barriers etc. - leading to best practice guidance and possible implementation of pilot schemes at key sensitive locations
Introduction of sustainability appraisal ‘checklist’ for all LTP schemes
Greenhouse Gases
Issues and problems
Existing baseline information – climate change in north-west, Merseyside emissions inventory (waiting for update this year)
Summary of problems already occurring and future scenarios, e.g. weather related incidents etc.
Consequences of continuing at existing emission rates
Future emissions – background of increasing traffic growth, added to by traffic generated by regeneration initiatives and new developments
Current levels of energy use and sources of energy
Policy solutions
Reduce congestion and reduce traffic volumes
Promote sustainable travel options
Promote use of alternative fuel vehicles – bus fleet and LA fleets
Planning conditions on new developments – e.g. for travel plans etc.
Prepare adaptation strategies and contingency/emergency planning
Compensate for/offset existing emissions
Pursue renewable energy sources for energy supply
Indicative programme
Traffic management measures to reduce congestion (Congestion group)
Measures to increase sustainable travel modes (TravelWise programme)
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 163
Quality Bus Contract – including engine standards for buses
Review of energy use and feasibility of using more renewable energy sources
Feasibility of carbon offset project – and subsequent implementation
Maintenance of Merseyside emissions inventory – to estimate transport contribution to overall greenhouse gas emissions
Develop links with and provide input to emergency planning processes
Local authority Carbon Management Strategies
Landscape and Biodiversity
Issues and problems
Large areas of highway and railway land – often of poor landscape and biodiversity value and subject to limited or uniform maintenance regimes
Standard maintenance regimes for retaining simple, low maintenance, low cost approach to highway and railway land
Fly tipping
Poor quality streetscape, including verges etc. has low social and community value
Limited access to landscapes and open spaces has ‘knock-on’ effect for health of local communities
Policy solutions
Alternative and imaginative approach to management of highway and railway land
Adoption of more varied maintenance regimes to provide a more varied and valuable landscape
Support increased physical activity through better access to landscapes, open spaces and sites of nature conservation interest
Promotion of ‘eco-tourism’
Sustainability appraisal for LTP schemes
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 164
Indicative programme
Pilot studies on innovative management of highway verges and creation of ‘wildflower’ habitats
Preparation of illustrated guidance/handbook for highway verge management and creation of ‘wildflower’ verges
Publication of maps/access guides to promote access to landscapes, open spaces and sites of nature conservation interest, including sites of interest for ‘eco-tourism’
Introduction of sustainability appraisal ‘checklist’ for all LTP schemes
Other Issues
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) & Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
Brief summary of approach, methods and progress of the SEA and strategic level SA, including environmental objectives, appraisal of objectives, SEA scoping report and preliminary findings. Additional description of remainder of process, including consultation proposals and scope for modification of LTP programme.
Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
Brief summary of approach, methods and progress of the HIA, including health objectives, appraisal of objectives, scoping report, integration with SEA and preliminary findings. Additional description of remainder of process, including consultation proposals and scope for modification of LTP programme.
Sustainable procurement
Review of procurement policies and practices in Merseyside authorities and Merseytravel, including corporate policies and specific transport/highway related practices. Assessment of the feasibility of introducing agreed Merseyside-wide policy relating to sustainable procurement for LTP funded schemes.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 165
10. Making the Best Use of Existing Assets
10.0.1 The role of the Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP)
The Merseyside partners recognise that investment in the local transport network over the previous 5 years has been substantial. In addition to LTP funding we have received substantial levels of investment from the current Objective One programme and have been successful in drawing in other sources of funding.
(Note identify these – what founded Renshaw Street for example).
10.0.2 We recognise that we have to ensure maximum value from this investment and to ensure it is efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.
10.0.3 Our approach will be to establish an effective Asset Management Base, and to ensure maintenance regimes are targeted in ways that support the aims of the Plan overall and integrated with wider programme measures to address the shared and local priorities. We will seek maximum value for money through our procurement regimes.
A fuller description of this approach is provided in Appendix 8.
10.1 10.1.1 Over recent years, Government Departments have introduced Whole of Government Accounting (WGA) and Resource Account Budgeting (RAB) to enable Departments to borrow finance against the value of their assets. Accounts would require the value of Assets to be reported. Fundamental to these initiatives was the production of an Asset Management Plan.
10.1.2 Within Local Authorities, Property Departments have, for the past few years, been required to produce a Property Asset Management Plan. With the proposed introduction of WGA and RAB into Local Authorities by 2007/08, the County Surveyors Society (CSS) and the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) of the Local Authorities Association commissioned the production of a guidance document for the production of Highway Asset Management Plans (HAMP). This Framework document was launched in 2004 to enable Highway Authorities to start the process of creating their HAMP. The valuation aspect of the Asset will be covered in a guidance
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 166
document to be launched at the Highway Conference in Nottingham on 6th July 2005.
10.1.3 As the Local Transport Plan (LTP) covers more than just the management of the Highway Asset, the guidance documentation for LTP2 expands the HAMP to include Transport elements, namely a Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP). This report states the Merseyside position on the production of TAMP’s prior to the submission of the draft LTP2 in July 2005.
Current Situation
10.1.4 Following the abolition of Merseyside County Council, the five Authorities have continued to work together across various disciplines sharing knowledge and experience. In some areas this has produced cross boundary working such as the provision of material testing and machine surveys through Sefton Laboratory Services and a Contract for the provision of road weather forecasts for winter maintenance provided by PA Weather Centre.
10.1.5 With the introduction of the Framework for Highway Asset Management, a group was set up comprising of all five Authorities to progress the production of HAMP’s on Merseyside. All members of the group have enrolled on the CIPFA Highway Asset Management Network which provides members with up to date information and guidance on not just Highway Asset Management but other areas which impact on Asset Management as a whole.
10.1.6 The Framework document was utilised as the starting point with each of the six sections being looking at in summary.
10.1.7 For LTP2, each Authority prepared a statement on what level of information is held against various Asset Classes and what inspections are carried out on each of these Asset Classes. These statements were presented in spreadsheet format to enable a composite spreadsheet to be compiled for Merseyside Merseytravel including Mersey Tunnels.
10.1.8 Work has continued in the production of a composite Asset Classes spreadsheet for Merseyside. Additional classes have been added to cater for the requirements of Merseytravel. No additional classes have been added to cover the two Merseyside tunnels.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 167
The Way Forward
10.1.9 The Group propose to continue meeting on a regular basis to progress the production of the TAMP. There is however, no proposal to create a Merseyside TAMP. There is a commitment to produce TAMP’s that, while individually tailored to meet the needs of each Authority will have a common purpose that reflects the overall aims of the Merseyside LTP. Each individual Highway Authority will therefore produce their own TAMP. 10.1.10 Work will be required to complete the spreadsheet of assets and the inspections carried out against these assets. Gap analysis will then be carried in two specific areas:
(i) What are the current aims and objectives of LTP2? How can programmes be complied to support improvements to freight and public transport routes, reduce flooding incidents, reduce accidents and help in the prevention of crime? What options are there for recycling of materials across all assets classes? Are there other opportunities for improved procurement and cross boundary working?
(ii) What are the aims and objectives of the Local Highway Authority? Does the TAMP comply with the policies and aspirations locally?
10.1.11 Forward works programmes will then be developed which will enable Authorities to prepare yearly bids for finance. Guidance provided in the forthcoming document on Highway Asset Valuation will be utilised in the preparation of each Authority's Asset value in preparation for WGA and RAB.
10.1.12 The Merseyside Authorities are currently working to a programme to complete their TAMP’s by summer 2006. Ongoing monitoring will be required to determine whether targets are being met and for preparing further works programmes for subsequent years.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 168
10.2 Highway Maintenance
10.2.1 Highway maintenance is a key issue across Merseyside. Over the five years of LTP1, the condition the roads has stabilised but there is still a considerable backlog of maintenance work which needs to be addressed. There are emerging concerns over the condition of the footway network and Merseyside has seen a significant rise in the number of tripping claims.
10.2.2 The Highway Authorities on Merseyside are developing Asset Management Plans which will identify and prioritise highway maintenance in accordance with safety and budgets.
10.2.3 Highway deterioration is a key factor through the area, with all Authorities having individual needs, which will be addressed through their own Asset Management Plans. However, there will be a close correlation across Merseyside on overall highway maintenance strategies.
Resource Allocation
10.2.4 When LTP1 was written in 2000, it was intended that all capital maintenance funding would be directed towards improving the condition of the Principal Road network. The strategy for Merseyside was to ensure that at the end of the 10 year LTP period, all principal roads would have some residual life.
10.2.5 In the first year of LTP1 (2001/02) capital funding was directed at ensuring that progress would be made towards achieving that target. However, in 2001, the Government advised that capital allocations could be directed towards the non-principal road network. Accordingly the Authorities on Merseyside re-directed some of their allocations from principal to non-principal roads.
10.2.6 As funding for the principal road network has reduced, it is unlikely that the Merseyside Authorities will achieve the objective of ensuring all principal roads have some residual life at the end of the ten year plan period.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 169
Setting Priorities
10.2.7 Merseyside Districts currently base their maintenance policies around
i Delivering Best Value in Highway Maintenance – A Code of Practice of Maintenance Management
i Deflectograph, SCRIM, CVI, DVI and SCANNER surveys
i The strategic importance of the route in the transport network.
i Integration with other strategies
When Asset Management Plans are introduced in 2006, this will enable a more holistic approach to be taken towards the development of maintenance programmes.
Integration with Other Strategies
10.2.8 The Merseyside Authorities develop their highway maintenance policies and programmes by considering and incorporating a wide range of strategies which influence how schemes are delivered.
10.2.9 The following strategies are all considered in determining Authorities maintenance regimes.
Public Transport Routes Bus frequencies. Pedestrian routes
Freight Route Volumes of traffic, sizes, weights, abnormal loads.
Cycle Routes On street or dedicated provision.
Footpath Routes Pedestrianised areas, rights of way. Usage
Road Safety Accident statistics, skid resistance, flooding, drainage
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 170
Carriageway Condition Structural surveys, SCANNER, visual surveys, site investigations
Footway Condition
Routine statutory inspection, visual surveys, insurance claims.
Social Inclusion Provision of disabled facilities. Accessibility
Schools Travel Plans. Safer Routes to School Initiatives.
Environment Landscaping, tree planting, quieter surfacing
Re-Cycling Use of re-cycled materials. Re-cycling excavated materials.
Traffic Management Act Reducing congestion. Cross-boundary working. Co- ordination.
10.3 Street Lighting
Demonstrate Value for Money
10.3.1 It is recognised that, in general, the standard of street lighting maintenance across the Merseyside Region is to a high standard that ensures as far as possible safe, economic, effective and reliable operation. Existing good practice ensures:
i Reactive repair procedures ensure expeditious responses to identified defects within predetermined time/periods.
i The provision and maintenance of an up-to-date inventory of all items of illuminated street furniture to enable satisfactory implementation and management of the maintenance process and to ensure accurate assessment of the electrical energy consumed.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 171
i Planned preventative maintenance / painting / column replacement / refurbishment programmes.
i Delivery of cost effective street lighting schemes providing a range of lighting in the Region including statutory street lighting, individual buildings and landmark lighting, amenity and festive lighting all aimed at enhancing Merseyside’s distinctive character, creating interest and vitality after dark and enhancing safety to road users and pedestrians and the community at large.
Promoting Best Practice in Lighting Design
10.3.2 The Merseyside Lighting Engineers Group is committed to producing a Strategy Document with a common purpose in mind examining key Street Lighting activities carried out across the Region to compare current practice and produce a recommended best practice for each activity under review.
10.3.3 The fundamental purpose of the Strategy will be to improve the Regions ability to deliver cost effective lighting to promote security, reduce road traffic accidents, advertise commercial enterprises, and permit outdoor working and sports activities at night.
10.3.4 The Strategy Document will set the agenda for the achievement of a meaningful framework of continuing improvement in relation to the provision and maintenance of street lighting and aims to evaluate the following:
i The level and standard of street lighting provision i The value and cost of the provision i The effect on crime and the fear of crime i The effect on road safety and the level of traffic accidents i The effect on the environment i Effective delivery of works i Effective implementation of reactive and preventative maintenance activities i Energy conservation i Reduction of insurance claim i Sustainability i Customer satisfaction with the provision i Availability of External Financing
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 172
10.3.4 The design of new and replacement lighting schemes is governed by the use of technical lighting guides and standards, compliances with current Health and Safety Regulations and, increasingly, an awareness of the impact street lighting has on the surrounding Environment. It is well documented that the reduction of night-time accidents and the perceived increase in the night-time safety of users is a major benefit to be gained by the provision of street lighting.
10.3.5 It is agreed that the local factors contributing to street lighting design practice vary across the Region. The needs of the local community, individual locations, environmental concerns and cost factors all need to be considered. The impact that new European Standard BSEN13201 will have on our existing design principles will be examined.
10.3.6 The Group is looking to strike a balance between achieving cost effective, lighting schemes, to satisfy our commitment to the Environment, whilst ensuring that we conform to existing best practice, design parameters to ensure the night-time safety of road users and the residents of Merseyside. It is likely that we will in common rural areas adopt a standard.
10.3.7 It is recognised that with the limitation on existing budgets for the replacement of sub-standard lighting and/of lighting equipment which has reached the end of its life each scheme. There is a greater need to assess all identified schemes to ensure best value is obtained.
10.3.8 Further consideration is to be given to the following points when prioritising new lighting schemes:
i Road safety – recorded night time personnel injury accident statistics i Crime prevention - recorded night time crime statistics i Environmental issues i Identification of ‘at risk’ population - high proportion of old people or children i Capital and maintenance costs i Commercial/economic regeneration i Links with transport facilities i Links with traffic flow i Replacement of poor structural or electrical condition of the existing lighting i Replacement of poorly illuminated existing lighting SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 173
i Desire to reduce energy and or maintenance costs i Demand for better lighting
10.3.9 Links to other Programme Areas
Personal Security
The Crime and Disorder Act places an obligation on Local Authorities to develop and implement safer community strategies. The provision of modern public lighting designed to the correct standard is a very tangible way in which the local authority can demonstrate its commitment to the provision of a safety and more attractive community. The group is committed to pursuing greater links with Merseyside Police and Safer Community initiatives in place across the region to ensure that lighting improvement strategies across the Region reflect the needs of the community at large in relation to reducing the fear of crime.
A suggested methodology for rating and therefore prioritising lighting schemes is to be formulated based on existing criteria presently used within the Region, and further consideration is to be given into the cost effectiveness of extending the life of existing street lighting equipment by refurbishing existing installations.
10.3.10 There are also strong links to the TravelSafe initiative (described more fully in Section 4.4.10) particularly in terms of linking street lighting to public transport hubs and creating safe routes. Further development with for example the HMRI initiative (described in Section 3) is being examined.
10.3.11 Environmental Considerations
In recent years there has been growing recognition that excessive, poorly designed and badly aimed lighting may have adverse effects. Excessive lighting can lead to sky glow, which shuts out the night sky, and poorly sited street lighting units can spoil daytime views. Glare from excessively bright or poorly aimed lights causes dazzle, with safety implications for motorists and pedestrians, particularly the elderly. Light spill or trespass may impinge directly on the home, destroying its sense of privacy and in severe cases interfere with people's ability to sleep. There is also a subtle, cumulative effect on the character of rural landscapes that tends to blur the distinction between urban and rural areas.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 174
10.3.12 Further consideration is to be given to the restriction of obtrusive light by:
i Further evaluation of the types of light sources used across the Region.
i Carry out a benchmarking exercise to assess the effectiveness of the existing lanterns installed across the Region.
10.3.13 The group will continue to monitor the performance of available lamp sources and instigate further site trials utilising the use of compact fluorescent, ceramic discharge metal halide lamps and LED technology to determine how to use white light optimally, ie residential areas effected by high rates of crime, major road junctions, commercial centres and to illuminate statues, monuments plus places of substantial historical interest.
The Strat–E-Gis system described in 11.3 will be used to allow effective cross referencing of priority areas and street lighting. More detailed information is provided in Appendices seven and eight.
10.3.14 The group has committed itself to aligning all existing energy agreements and exploring further the possible benefits of forming a Regional “best value-risk acceptance” pricing procurement strategy to hopefully maximise the benefit of aggregate purchase. Other measures will include:
(i) A greater emphasis on the use of Green Energy (wind, hydro, bio generation) is planned to assist in reducing carbon dioxide emissions therefore removing the need to pay the Climate Change Levy (CCL).
(ii) Development of joint approach to identify and programme the removal of illuminated sign lanterns not required following the recent amendments to the Traffic Sign Regulations; and
(iii) It is hoped that the continuing introduction of energy efficient light sources and electronic ballasts across the region will produce further savings when endorsed by the Distribution Network Operator.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 175
10.3.15 The Group aims to jointly explore the possibilities of alternative means of funding future column replacement programme’s in accordance with Best Value principles by further utilising existing Government and European Funding available for Safer Routes for Schools, Accident Prevention, Crime Reduction, Community Safety, Neighbourhood Renewal and Civic Pride initiatives. The potential third party revenue via private companies wishing to combine street lighting columns with advertising posters and variable message signs and/or the combined use of street lighting columns as mobile phone masts are to be explored further subject to the agreement of each individual Authority.
10.3.16 Following the implementation of phase 3 of the Disabled Discrimination Act in October 2004 the group has agreed to develop a joint approach to ensure that existing policies requiring the need for adequate clearances when installing / replacing existing street lighting equipment are further enforced and redundant street lighting and illuminated traffic furniture identified and removed accordingly across the Region.
10.3.17 In line with Merseyside’s commitment to Local Agenda 21, the group intends to develop a joint approach to, were practicable salvage for reuse or recycling all existing redundant street lighting and illuminated traffic sign equipment, including the reuse of obsolete lantern parts and the recycling concrete columns, scrap metal, lamps, bollards and Electrical / Electronic Equipment, lanterns and associated control and management systems specified across the Region will conform to the WEEE and RoHS directives which aim to substantially reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment entering incinerators and landfill sites and to eliminate the hazardous substances these products contain.
10.3.18 Further Management Arrangements
The group intends to undertake a Regional consultation exercise of stakeholders to elicit relation to existing perceptions and future needs in relation to street lighting within the region.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 176
Additionally the group plans to instigate a series of research projects to include, an assessment of how the age and environmental relates to the structural deterioration of street lighting columns across the Region plus detailed data analysis relating to lamp life and the effectiveness of a lamp replacement programme opposed to a policy allowing lamps to burn to extinction.
10.3.19 It is also intended that further examination of joint local authority action in relation to:
(i) sharing the expertise and knowledge of existing Term Maintenance arrangements. Joint initiatives may include the development of a Regional approach to inventory collection, electrical / structural testing, and undertaking of night inspections.
(ii) a review of their existing Contract documentation / obligations to identify common threads, cost effectiveness of comparable schedule of rates / item coverage’s. Explore the possibility of entering into joint materials procurement strategy ventures to ascertain the possible savings in procuring street lighting columns, lamps etc from a ‘one stop shop’ distributor plus hopes to investigate the possibility of a joint venture to share salvaged obsolete equipment for maintenance activities generated from the replacement of redundant street lighting units.
(iii) The group will continue to negotiate jointly regarding matters concerning the Distribution Network Operator in relation to existing and proposed Service Level Agreements and pricing structures.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 177
11. The Five-Year Action Plan
(a) Targets and Indicators
11.1 Strat-e-GIS
Strat-e-gis is an internet GIS system that has been developed to enable wide access to geographic information via a standard web browser, with the added benefit of powerful analysis tools.
Strat-e-gis brings together geographic data from a range of users and enables the sharing of information to give a joined up sub-regional picture across Merseyside to inform a wide variety of strategy development and monitoring requirements. Analysis can be undertaken at both the local site specific level, or over a wide area.
Strat-e-gis and the Second Local Transport Plan for Merseyside
11.2 Strat-e-gis has been identified as an important tool for the ongoing development of Local Transport Plan related work in Merseyside. The tool will allow officers across the partner authorities to easily access and analyse data across a wide variety of themes. It is anticipated that the system will give real advantages in cross cutting data analysis linking areas such as planning, crime, and socio-economic profiles with transport.
11.3 Below are some of the areas that have been identified as potential transport data inputs into the system;
i ITIS journey time data i Traffic Counts i Road Hierarchy i Accession accessibility mapping layers i Street Lighting i TAMP requirements i Traffic Accident data
11.4 One example of the kind of analysis that will be possible is the potential to examine any linkages between accessibility and data on crime, street lighting and census profile information.
It is hoped that over the second LTP period Strat-e-gis will become an integral and vital part of the transport planning process, linking some areas which have previously worked in relative isolation.
A pilot application for the LTP is already being used. Aggregated ITIS journey time data is being incorporated into Strat-e-gis and
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 178
examined in relation to the emerging Merseyside Road Hierarchy and other existing data sets.
More technical detail is provided in Appendix Seven.
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 179
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 180
Merseyside Second Local Transport Plan - Performance Indicators (DRAFT @ 21st April 2005)
Shared Priority / Local Priority Area No. Indicator Notes Target / Monitor Local Priority Congestion Accessibility Safer Roads Better Air Quality Quality of Life MANDATORY indicators Access to School % of Access to Further Education % of See local PI13 and 14 Access to Work % of LTP1 for accessibility M Access to Hospitals% of indicators with targets Access to GPs % of Access to Major Centres % of LTP2 Change in area wide road traffic M (a) On road daytime MCC LTP3 Cycling indicator index T (b) 24/7 Cycle network LTP4 Mode Share of Journeys to School T LTP5 Bus Punctuality T To cover Liverpool all LTP6 Changes in peak period traffic flows to urban centre T modes LTP7 Congestion (Average Vehicle Delay) T Pollutant concentrations within Air Quality Management LTP8 See also PI’s 16/17/18 M/(T) Areas (AQMAs) BVPI102 Public transport patronage T
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 182
Shared Priority / Local
Priority Area No. Indicator Notes Target / Monitor Congestion Accessibility Safer Roads Better Air Quality Quality of Life Local Priority
BVPI104 Satisfaction with local bus services. T BVPI99 (x) Total killed and seriously injured casualties. T BVPI99 (y) Child killed and seriously injured casualties. T BVPI99 (z) Total slight casualties. T BVPI187 Footway condition. T Continuing national BVPI96 Principal Road condition. changes to indicator (T) methodology BVPI97a Non-Principal Classified Road condition. “ ” (T) BVPI97b Unclassified Road condition. “ ” (T) CONGESTION group led indicators Sustainable transport as the final mode for air 1 T passengers 2 HGV journey times on designated freight routes T Limit current number of car parking spaces available in 3 T Liverpool City Centre Further investigation of % of network below threshold speeds during peak data quality needed to 4 M (T) periods determine feasibility of target Extent of peak spreading (proportion of time when 5 M average speeds below a certain threshold of speed)
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 183
Shared Priority / Local
Priority Area No. Indicator Notes Target / Monitor Local Priority Congestion Accessibility Safer Roads Better Air Quality Quality of Life BV 100 Number of days of temporary traffic controls on traffic 6 Roadworks coverage and impacts M sensitive roads per km of traffic sensitive road 7 No. of people using Park and Ride T ACCESSIBILITY group led indicators Number % of rural households within 800m or 13 LTP1 mandatory 8 T minutes of an hourly or better bus service indicator Number of rail stations upgraded to meet present standards for 9 T/T a) facilities and access b) security 10 BV165 (accessibility of pedestrian crossings) T
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 184
Shared Priority / Local
Priority Area No. Indicator Notes Target / Monitor Local Priority Congestion Accessibility Safer Roads Better Air Quality Quality of Life Methodology dvp. Req. % total bus network served (by vehicle mile) 11 Bus based Physical access by M/T a) fully accessible low floor vehicles; b) infrastructure Cost of a) average bus fare 12 Affordability M /mile : b) car cost index Accessibility of 13 Accessibility - Economic impact unemployed residents T in to regeneration area % of 16-19 year olds within 30 and 60 14 Accessibility - Education minutes establishment T by walking / cycle / bus / train a) Number of broken window incidents recorded on public 15 Crime / fear of crime on and around public transport transport; M/M b) Proportion of people who are discouraged from PT use at night
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 185
Shared Priority / Local
Priority Area No. Indicator Notes Target / Monitor Congestion Accessibility Safer Roads Better Air Quality Quality of Life Local Priority QUALITY AIR/LIFE group led indicators Estimated transport related emissions (tonnes/year) of 16 M CO, nitrogen oxides & particulate matter 17 Vehicle mileage in the AQMA or area of exceedence; T 18 Environmental Standard of Bus Fleet T North West and 19 Physical Activity Indicator Liverpool Public Health T Indicator TO BE RESOLVED T.b.c. Ref: NTS data Modal Share indicators T? availability and DfT survey pilots T.b.c. Economic indicator a) GVA per head M b) Worklessness T.b.c. Percentage of new developments meeting minimum Subject to adoption of T? standards for all transport modes as defined by SPD draft SPD and data capture development Bus satisfaction related to quality tbc Bridge Condition tbc
Street Lighting Condition tbc
% of Council owned bridges subject to General tbc Inspection within the last two years SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS % of highway retaining walls on which assessments 17.06.05 tbc completed 186 Number of bridges with a residual life of less than five tbc years without maintenance
(b) Monitoring strategy.
To follow
12. The enhanced programme.
(a) Proposals for additional LTP support.
To follow
(b) Proposals for Major schemes.
To follow
(c) Proposals for TIF.
To follow
SU/MISC/TheProvisionalLTP2-Draft3-MG/LS 17.06.05 188