DOCSLIB.ORG

Worcestershire Local Transport Board

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Worcestershire Local Transport Board August 2013 WORCESTERSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BOARD MAJOR SCHEME PRIORITISATION Worcestershire County Council 3513092A-PTE/1/02 Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation 3513092A-PTE /1/02 Prepared for Worcestershire County Council County Hall Spetchley Road Worcester WR5 2NP Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff The Forum Barnfield Road Exeter EX1 1QR 01392 229700 www.pbworld.com Report Title : Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation Report Status : Final Job No : 3513092A-PTE Date : August 2013 DOCUMENT HISTORY AND STATUS Document control Checked by Prepared by Ian Beavis Ian Beavis (technical) Checked by Approved by Ian Harrison Ian Beavis (quality assurance) Revision details Pages Version Date Comments affected 1.0 July 2013 All Draft Report 2.0 August 2013 All Final Report Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation AUTHORISATION SHEET Client: Worcestershire County Council Project: Worcestershire Local Transport Board – Major Scheme Prioritisation Address: County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcester, WR5 2NP PREPARED BY Name: Ian Beavis Position: Associate, Transportation Planning Date: August 2013 AGREED BY Name: Ian Harrison Position: Consultant, Transportation Planning Date: August 2013 AUTHORISED FOR ISSUE Name: Ian Beavis Position: Associate, Transportation Planning Date: August 2013 DISTRIBUTION ACCEPTED BY Name: Peter Blake Position: Worcestershire County Council Date: August 2013 Name: Roy Fullee Position: Worcestershire County Council Date: August 2013 Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff August 2013 for Worcestershire County Council - 1 - Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 1 INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 Background 8 1.2 Candidate Schemes 8 1.3 Purpose of Note 9 2 LOCAL TRANSPORT BOARD MAJOR SCHEME FUNDING PROCESS 11 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Funding 11 2.3 Role of Independent Transport Advisor 11 2.4 Assurance Framework 12 3 CANDIDATE SCHEMES 15 3.1 Introduction 15 3.2 A4440 Southern Link Road 15 3.3 Worcestershire Parkway (Phase 1) 15 3.4 Hoobrook Link Road 15 3.5 Pershore Northern Link 16 4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 18 4.1 Overview of Process 18 4.2 Objectives 19 4.3 Stage 1 – Screening 20 4.4 Stage 2 – Prioritisation 22 4.5 Stage 3 – Blending 23 5 STAGE 1 – SCREENING 25 5.1 Introduction 25 5.2 Outputs of Screening Process 25 5.3 Conclusion 26 6 STAGE 2 – PRIORITISATION 28 6.1 Introduction 28 6.2 Outputs of Prioritisation Process 28 6.3 Prioritisation Review 28 6.4 Conclusion 28 7 STAGE 3 – BLENDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30 7.1 Blending 30 7.2 Programme and Funding 30 7.3 Prioritisation 31 7.4 Recommendations 31 Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff August 2013 for Worcestershire County Council - 2 - Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation TABLES Page Table E1 – Outputs from Prioritisation Process 6 Table E2 – Recommended Funding Programme (2015 – 2019) 6 Table 1 – Screening Criteria and Pass Thresholds 21 Table 2 – Prioritisation Criteria and Weightings 22 Table 3 – Outputs from Screening Process 26 Table 4 – Outputs from Prioritisation Process 28 Table 5 – Recommended Funding Programme (2015 – 2019) 30 APPENDICES Page Appendix 1 – Draft Assurance Framework 33 Appendix 2 – Submitted Scheme Pro-formas 34 Appendix 3 – Prioritisation Categorisation Table 35 Appendix 4 – Scheme Score Sheets 36 Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff August 2013 for Worcestershire County Council - 3 - Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff August 2013 for Worcestershire County Council - 4 - Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary This report details the process that has been used to assess and prioritise scheme submitted to the Worcestershire Local Transport Board for major scheme funding. The Worcestershire LTB has provisionally been allocated £11.5m of devolved major scheme funding for the funding period from 2015 to 2019. The DfT have advised that the funding allocation could be increased or decreased by up to 30% (ranging from £8.05m to £14.95m). The following four schemes were submitted for assessment (the promoting authority is shown in brackets): x A4440 Southern Link Road, Worcester (Worcestershire County Council) x Worcestershire Parkway, near Worcester (Worcestershire County Council) x Hoobrook Link Road, Kidderminster (Worcestershire County Council) x Pershore Northern Link, Pershore (Wychavon District Council) The DfT requires LTBs to publish and submit to them a prioritised list of schemes by 31st July 2013. Assessment Methodology The assessment process has consisted of three stages: x Stage 1 – Screening: this consists of a pass / fail gateway to ensure that submitted schemes meet key, baseline criteria and can be taken forward for fuller assessment in Stage 2; x Stage 2 – Prioritisation: this assesses and scores schemes against the key objectives of the LTB. The objectives are weighted to allow high priority to be placed on key objectives of the programme; x Stage 3 – Blending: this builds on the prioritisation stage to develop a funding programme, by considering other relevant factors such as affordability, deliverability and delivery programme. Outputs from Assessment Processes Screening The outputs from screening process show that all 4 schemes pass the screening assessment and should be taken forward for fuller assessment in Stage 2 (prioritisation). Prioritisation The outputs of the prioritisation process are shown in the following table: Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff August 2013 for Worcestershire County Council - 5 - Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation Criteria Score Funding Sought (£m) A4440 Southern Link Road 33 7.00 Hoobrook Link Road 28 2.50 Worcestershire Parkway 28 2.10 Pershore Link Road 19 1.65 Total Funding Sought 13.25 Table E1 – Outputs from Prioritisation Process The prioritisation process (Stage 2) has been completed and provides a prioritised list of schemes to be taken forward to Stage 3 (blending). Blending The blending process (Stage 3) has recommended that the following schemes be included within the prioritised programme: Criteria Recommendation A4440 Southern Link Road Hoobrook Link Road Recommended for funding Worcestershire Parkway Pershore Northern Link On reserve list should funding be increased Table E2 – Recommended Funding Programme (2015 – 2019) Prioritisation In terms of prioritisation of schemes, it is suggested that the highest priority should be placed with the Hoobrook Link Road scheme. This is primarily due to the timescales associated with the secured Pinchpoint funding, and hence it is important to move to submission of a Business Case as quickly as possible. Recommendations It is recommended that, for schemes to be progressed to the stage where a Business Case can be submitted for Programme Entry, work is progressed with urgency for all schemes; this is particularly relevant for the three schemes which will require the involvement of Network Rail. Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff August 2013 for Worcestershire County Council - 6 - Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff August 2013 for Worcestershire County Council - 7 - Worcestershire Local Transport Board - Major Scheme Prioritisation 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.1.1 Guidance from the Department for Transport (DfT) in November 2011 confirmed the intention of the Government to devolve major transport scheme funding from the DfT to Local Transport Bodies (LTBs) by 2015. The primary role of LTBs will be to decide which investments should be prioritised in their area, to review and approve individual business cases for those investments and to ensure effective delivery of the programme. 1.1.2 The Worcestershire Local Transport Board (LTB) will therefore now manage the development and delivery of major transport schemes in Worcestershire. The Worcestershire LTB consists of members from Worcestershire County Council, Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), Birmingham and Solihull LEP and Worcestershire District Councils. Representatives from Network Rail / Highways Agency and Worcestershire Transport Operators will also form part of the LTB, but in a non-voting capacity1. 1.1.3 As part of this process, the DfT requires LTBs to publish and submit to them a prioritised list of transport schemes by the end of July 2013, for the funding period from 2015 to 2019. 1.1.4 Parsons Brinkerhoff has been commissioned by Worcestershire County Council, as the Accountable Body for Worcestershire LTB, to act as the Independent Transport Advisor to the LTB. The role of the ITA includes developing a suitable process for the prioritisation of major schemes, carrying out this process and providing independent advice and support to the LTB. 1.2 Candidate Schemes 1.2.1 In order to be considered for funding for the 2015 to 2019 period, scheme promoters were required to submit candidate schemes to the LTB by 31st May 2013. The following four schemes were submitted (the promoting authority is shown in brackets): x A4440 Southern Link Road, Worcester (Worcestershire County Council) x Worcestershire Parkway, near Worcester (Worcestershire County Council) x Hoobrook Link Road, Kidderminster (Worcestershire County Council) x Pershore Northern Link, Pershore (Wychavon District Council) 1.2.2 Further information on these schemes is provided in Section 3 of this report.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Executive Board Meeting 10Am, Friday 23Rd March 2012
    Executive Board Meeting 10am, Friday 23 rd March 2012 Nottingham City Council AGENDA 1. Apologies 2. Declarations of Interest 3. Minutes of the Executive Board Meeting 16 TH December 2011 4. Financial Report 2011-12 5. EMC Priorities – Business Plan 2012-13 6. EMC Budget 2012-13 7. EMC Membership 2012/13 (Verbal Report) 8. Welfare Reform 9. Transport Investment a) Midland Main Line Upgrade & Electrification b) Local Transport Bodies Consultation 10. Regional Growth Fund and BIS Update (Verbal Report) 11. Affordable Housing Provision 12. Judicial Review and DEFRA Consultation on the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 13. Board Reports a) East Midlands Improvement & Efficiency Partnership b) Strategic Migration Board c) Regional Employers Board 14. Report of the EMC Management Group (discussion to be chaired by Cllr Jon Collins) Item 3 EAST MIDLANDS COUNCILS EXECUTIVE BOARD MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 TH DECEMBER 2011 AT LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Present: Cllr David Parsons CBE (Chair) – Leicestershire County Council Cllr Jon Collins (Vice-Chair) – Nottingham City Council Cllr Neil Clarke (Vice Chair) – Rushcliffe Borough Council Cllr Ernie White – Blaby District Council Cllr Chris Millar – Daventry District Council Cllr Andrew Lewer – Derbyshire County Council Cllr Lewis Rose OBE – Derbyshire Dales District Council Cllr Martin Hill OBE – Lincolnshire County Council Cllr Kay Cutts – Nottinghamshire County Council Cllr Roger Begy OBE – Rutland County Council Cllr Linda Neal – South Kesteven District Council Cllr Robert
    [Show full text]
  • Worcestershire Local Transport Board Framework
    Worcestershire Local Transport Board Assurance Framework February 2013 Find out more online: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/transport www.wlep.org.uk Worcestershire Local Transport Body Assurance Framework 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 2. Purpose, Structure and Operating Principles 2 2.1 Name 2 2.2 Geography 2 2.3 Membership 2 2.4 Status and Role of Accountable Body 3 2.5 Conflicts of Interest 4 2.6 Gifts and Hospitality 4 2.7 Audit and Scrutiny 5 2.8 Strategic Objectives and Purpose 5 2.9 Support and Administration Arrangements 5 2.10 Working Arrangements and Meeting Frequency 6 2.11 Transparency and Local Engagement 6 2.12 Complaints and Whistle Blowing 6 3. Prioritisation of Schemes 7 3.1 Introduction 7 3.2 Prioritisation Process 7 3.3 Scheme Eligibility 8 4. Programme Management and Investment Decisions 10 4.1 Scheme Assessment and Approval 10 4.2 Programme Entry 10 4.3 Conditional Approval 10 4.4 Full Approval 10 4.5 The Transport Business Case 11 4.6 Strategic Case 11 4.7 Economic Case 11 4.8 Financial Case 11 4.9 Commercial Case 11 4.10 Management Case 12 4.11 Value for Money 12 4.12 External Views on Business Cases 12 4.13 Release of Funding, Cost Control and Approval Conditions 13 Appendix A -Articles of Constitution, Financial Regulations, Guide to Worcestershire County Council Constitution, Members' Code of Conduct, Procedural Standing Orders Appendix B - LTP3 Policy List, The Worcestershire SAF Summary, Worcestershire County Council Scheme Appraisal Framework: User Guide 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 The Department for Transport has announced its intention to devolve funding for local major transport schemes to Local Transport Bodies (LTBs) from 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport for the North a Blueprint for Devolving and Integrating Transport Powers in England
    REPORT TRANSPORT FOR THE NORTH A BLUEPRINT FOR DEVOLVING AND INTEGRATING TRANSPORT POWERS IN ENGLAND Ed Cox and Luke Raikes March 2015 © IPPR North 2015 Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT IPPR NORTH IPPR North is IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England. supported by With its head office in Manchester and representatives in Newcastle, IPPR North’s research, together with our stimulating and varied events programme, seeks to produce innovative policy ideas for fair, democratic and sustainable communities across the North of England. IPPR North specialises in regional economics, localism and community policy. Our approach is collaborative and we benefit from extensive sub-national networks, regional associates, and a strong track record of engaging with policymakers at regional, sub-regional and local levels. IPPR North 2nd Floor, 3 Hardman Square Spinningfields, Manchester M3 3EB T: +44 (0)161 457 0535 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org/north Registered charity no. 800065 This paper was first published in March 2015. © 2015 The contents and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors only. NEW IDEAS for CHANGE CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................1 Background: the rationale and development of Transport for the North .................. 1 Purpose, objectives and vision ............................................................................... 1 Timetable and blueprint for development ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Solent Local Transport Body
    APPENDIX B Solent Local Transport Body Assurance Framework Draft v-1 CONTENTS Assurance Framework Signatories 3 Introduction 4 Part 1: Purpose Structure and Operating Principles 5 1.1 Name 5 1.2 Geography 5 1.3 Membership 5 1.4 Review 6 1.5 Voting Arrangements 6 1.6 Conflicts of Interest 6 1.7 Gifts and Hospitality 6 1.8 Status and Role of Accountable Body 6 1.9 Audit and Scrutiny 7 1.10 Strategic Objectives and Purpose 7 1.11 Support and Administration 7 Agreements 1.12 Working Arrangements and Meeting 7 Frequency 1.13 Transparency and Engagement 8 1.14 Complaints and Whistleblowing 8 Part 2: Prioritisation 9 2.1 Prioritisation 9 2.2 Scheme Eligibility 13 Part 3: Programme Management and Investment 14 Decisions 3.1 Scheme Assessment and Approval 14 3.2 Approval Regime 14 3.3 The Transport Business Case 15 3.4 Value for Money 15 3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 16 3.6 External Views on Business Cases 16 3.7 Release of Funding, Cost Control and 16 Approval Conditions 3.8 Programme and Risk Management 16 Appendix A Agreement Relating to the Solent Local 17 Transport Body Appendix B Solent LTB Boundary Proposal Letter 45 2 ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK SIGNATORIES Cllr. Mel Kendall Cllr. Jason Fazackarley Executive Member for Environment and Executive Member for Traffic and Transport & Deputy Leader of the Council Transportation Cllr. Edward Giles Russell Kew Executive Member for Procurement, Fire, Director Highways and Transport Cllr. Asa Thorpe Executive Member for Environment and Transport 3 INTRODUCTION This draft Assurance Framework sets out the arrangements that will be put in place to provide assurance that the Solent Local Transport Body (LTB) will operate in accordance with the Guidance for Local Transport Bodies, published by the Department for Transport (DfT) on 23rd November 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Solent Local Transport Body Transport Investment Priorities Within Indicative Funding Envelope
    Solent Local Transport Body Transport Investment Priorities Within Indicative Funding Envelope July 2013 1 Contents Section Number Section Title Page Number 1 Introduction 3 2 Assessment 5 3 Transport Investment Priorities 8 4 Inter-LTB Transport Investment 9 Appendix 1 10 2 Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Background The Solent Local Transport Body (LTB) is a voluntary partnership between the four Local Transport Authorities of Hampshire County Council, Isle of Wight Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council, the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) covering the area shown in Map 1, below. This boundary is coterminous with that of the Solent LEP and Transport for South Hampshire & Isle of Wight (TfSHIoW). Map 1: Solent LTB Area The LTB builds upon the existing structure of partnership working on strategic transport matters within the area, as provided by TfSHIoW. The LTB also includes the Solent LEP, which brings together the private and public sectors to set the economic strategy and priorities to realise sustainable economic growth and private sector investment in the Solent area, and PUSH, which brings together the local authorities of the area to facilitate the strategic planning functions necessary to support growth. In addition to the full (voting) members, the LTB has a range of Associate Members, including public transport operators, the ports and airport, local planning authorities and economic partnerships. The TfSHIoW Transport Delivery Plan (TDP), published in February this year, sets out the transport investment priorities for the Solent area. The TDP represents the output of a significant workstream that followed the DfT WebTAG process for identifying transport solutions that support sustainable economic growth in the Solent area.
    [Show full text]
  • Hampshire Local Transport Plan
    Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2031 www.hants.gov.uk Hampshire Local Transport Plan Foreword i Part A: Long-term LTP Strategy 2011-2031 Chapter 1: The Transport Vision 1 Chapter 2: Transport Priorities 12 Chapter 3: The Hampshire Context 21 Chapter 4: Monitoring and review 38 Chapter 5: Transport Strategy for North Hampshire 45 Chapter 6: Transport Strategy for Central Hampshire and The New Forest 53 Chapter 7: South Hampshire Joint Strategy 62 Part B: Three-year Implementation Plan 2011/12 to 2013/14 Chapter 8: Implementation Plan 81 Glossary 93 For a copy of this publication in another language or format (e.g. large print or audio) please contact Hantsdirect on 0845 603 5633 or [email protected] Foreword We are pleased to introduce Hampshire County Council’s new Local Transport Plan (LTP). It is intended to be a succinct and readable document written in two parts: a 20-year Strategy, which sets out a long-term vision for how the transport network of Hampshire will be developed over the next 20 years, and clearly articulates how the LTP will contribute to achieving progress on the County Council’s corporate priorities; and a three-year Implementation Plan. A number of major issues face Hampshire in the years ahead. We must support the sustainable growth and competitiveness of the Hampshire economy and sustain the high quality of life enjoyed by current and future Hampshire residents, while responding to challenges like climate change. In its plans to address these issues, the County Council plays an important role in ensuring that transport and travel in Hampshire is safe, efficient and reliable.
    [Show full text]
  • Approval of the Governance and Operation of the Coast to Capital
    Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Ref HT06(13/14) Approval of the Governance and operation of the Key Decision: Coast to Capital Local Transport Body Yes July 2013 Part I Report by Executive Director Communities Electoral Commissioning and Strategic Planning Manager Division(s): All Executive Summary The County Council seeks to establish a Local Transport Body for the Coast to Capital area along with Surrey County Council, Brighton & Hove City Council and Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership. It will be known as the Coast to Capital Transport Body (the LTB) and it will decide priorities and manage a programme of investment in local major transport schemes in the Coast to Capital area (including West Sussex) from 2015 onwards. This report includes details of the proposed governance and decision-making arrangements, scheme assessment and administration for the LTB. Recommendations 1) To enter into formal arrangements with Surrey County Council, Brighton & Hove City Council and Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership to establish the Coast to Capital Transport Body (the LTB) to administer devolved funding for local major transport schemes, through an agreement approved and signed by the Head of Law and Governance; 2) To approve that the County Council assumes the role of accountable body for the LTB as outlined in paragraph 1.4; and 3) To approve the arrangements for governance, scheme assessment, decision-making and administration of the LTB summarised in Appendix A, subject to the satisfactory resolution of issues as described in paragraph 2.4 – 2.5. 1. Introduction 1.1 In November 2012, the Department for Transport (DfT) published its intention to devolve decision-making on local major transport schemes to newly created Local Transport Bodies based on the geographical areas covered by the Local Enterprise Partnerships.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport for South Hampshire Business Plan 2011 – 2013 Mid-Term Review 2012
    Transport for South Hampshire Business Plan 2011 – 2013 Mid-term review 2012 June 2011 – May 2013 Contents 1 Introduction Page 3 2 Background Pages 4 – 7 3 Strategic Direction Page 8 – 9 4 Governance & Partnerships Pages 10 – 11 5 Finance Pages 12 6 Work Programme 2011 – 2013 Pages 13 – 17 7 Resources and Working Arrangements Page 18 8 Risk Register Pages 19 – 20 TfSH Business Plan 2011-13 2 Mid-term update 1. Introduction from the Chairman Councillor Melville Kendal Chairman of the TfSH Joint Committee This TfSH Business Plan provides a mid-term update to the 2011-13 Business Plan that we published last year. It sets out how key priorities for the South Hampshire area, as identified by the Solent LEP, the South Hampshire Joint Local Transport Plan Strategy and PUSH will be delivered through a Work Programme. When this third Business Plan was published last year, we noted that it was written within a significantly changed context, and as we update this plan mid-term, change continues. Since taking office two years ago, the coalition Government has set out its agenda on public sector funding, local governance and transport policy through a series of statements, policy documents and funding decisions. These policy shifts are having a significant impact across the local government sector and more widely. We have adapted well to the changed context and seized opportunities for delivering improved transport outcomes for South Hampshire, as and when they have arisen. The past 12 months have been successful: We have been awarded £4.5m of DfT funding following a successful bid to the Better Bus Area Fund, and are one of just 13 areas short-listed within the large project package category of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Economic Plan 2014 Annexes
    APPENDICES AND TRANSPORT ANNEX Coast to Capital Strategic Economic Plan March 2014 Appendices and Transport Annex This document contains the Appendices and Transport Annex for the Coast to Capital Strategic Economic Plan. The main document can be found at www.coast2capital.gov.uk Contents APPENDIX 1: GROWTH DEAL SUMMARY SHEET ...................................................................................................................... 2 APPENDIX 2: BURGESS HILL ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 APPENDIX 3: CROYDON ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX 4: HEART OF THE GATWICK DIAMOND .............................................................................................................. 14 APPENDIX 5: EAST SURREY M25 CORRIDOR ......................................................................................................................... 18 APPENDIX 6: BRIGHTON AND HOVE .......................................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX 7: COASTAL CORRIDOR ............................................................................................................................................. 40 APPENDIX 8: ENTERPRISE AT BOGNOR REGIS ENTERPRISE ZONE ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting / Decision Maker: Cabinet
    MEETING / CABINET MEMBER: EDUCATION AND DECISION MAKER: INFRASTRUCTURE DATE: 17 JANUARY 2013 TITLE OF REPORT: Major Scheme Funding REPORT BY: Steve Burgess, Head of Transportation and Access CABINET SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FINAL CALL IN DATE: 22 MEMBER(S) ONLY JANUARY 2013 DATE DECISION MAY BE IMPLEMENTED: 23 JANUARY 2013 1. Classification Open 2. Key Decision This is not a key decision 3. Wards Affected County-wide 4. Purpose To advise Cabinet Member on government’s proposed changes to the major scheme funding programme and seek its agreement to the proposed governance arrangements outlined in this report to establish the Marches Local Transport Body. 5. Recommendation(s) THAT: The Cabinet Member a) “Agrees to the establishment of a Marches Local Transport Body. b) Authorise the Assistant Director Law, Governance and Resilience to finalise the terms of a joint committee as indicated in the report. c) Authorise the Director of Places and Communities to conclude arrangements with the Department of Transport, including the identification of an accountable body.” Further information on the subject of this report is available from Steve Burgess on Tel: (01432) 26 0968 J:\TEMPLATES\Current templates\_Formal Report Template 3Oct12.doc 6. Key Points Summary • Government consulted on the devolution of its major scheme funding programme for the next spending round period (2015-2019) earlier in 2012, signalling its intention to devolve the programme to ‘local transport bodies’. The consultation also indicated the likely move away from a bidding approach to a formula based allocation of the programme. • Herefordshire Council and the Marches LEP responded directly to the consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford, Milton Keynes, Cambridge Northampton Growth Corridor
    Oxford, Milton National Infrastructure Keynes, Cambridge Commission Northampton Growth Corridor Strategy Assessment Report Our ref: 23142501 November 2017 Client ref: CCCC17A41 Oxford, Milton Keynes, National Infrastructure Cambridge Commission Northampton Growth Corridor Strategy Assessment Report Our ref: 23142501 November 2017 Client ref: CCCC17A41 Prepared by: Prepared for: Steer Davies Gleave National Infrastructure Commission 28-32 Upper Ground 5th Floor, 11 Philpot Lane London SE1 9PD London EC3M 8UD +44 20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material for National Infrastructure Commission. This material may only be used within the context and scope for which Steer Davies Gleave has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made. Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 Cambridge .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Future of Mobility: Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures Technical Annexes
    Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures: Technical Annex Future of Mobility: Evidence Review Foresight, Government Office for Science Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures: Technical Annex Professor Alf Baird (Independent) Dr Lucy Budd (Loughborough University) Professor Oliver Carsten (University of Leeds) Professor Iain Docherty (University of Glasgow) Nigel Foster (Fore Consulting) Professor Greg Marsden (University of Leeds) Professor Chris Nash (University of Leeds) Dr John Nellthorp (University of Leeds) Emma Roberts (Fore Consulting) Dr Phillip Wheat (University of Leeds) Professor Peter White (University of Westminster) Dr Tony Whiteing (University of Leeds) January 2019 This report has an information cut off date of May 2018. This review has been commissioned as part of the UK government’s Foresight Future of Mobility project. The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent those of any government or organisation. This document is not a statement of government policy. 1 Table of Contents Method Statement.................................................................................................................. 7 Scope and Boundaries .......................................................................................................... 7 1. MODES .................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Domestic aviation .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]