M61966 Environment

Transport Policy Section Local Transport Plan

2006-07 to 2010-11

LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN

2006-07 to 2010-11

Milton Keynes Council Environment Directorate Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East MK9 3HQ

Tel (01908) 252599 International Tel +44 1908 252599 Fax (01908) 252330 [email protected]

Brian Sandom Corporate Director - Environment

 Copyright March 2006

To obtain copies of our Second LTP please contact:

Transport Policy Planning and Transport PO Box 112 Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3HQ.

Telephone: 01908 252599. E-mail to [email protected]

Copies can be made available on CD ROM. We can also supply the LTP electronically via e-mail if preferred.

Copies are also available from the Civic Offices. Reference copies will also be available at all libraries in Milton Keynes.

Alternatively, all our current transport documents including the LTP, APR and transport strategies and policies are available on the web at the following address: http://www.miltonkeynes.gov.uk/transport/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=13771

Assistance can be provided for anyone with sight difficulties.

Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Foreword We are very fortunate to live in an exciting place like Milton Keynes. It appears that hardly a day passes without a new school opening, people moving into a newly built housing development and new retail and leisure opportunities opening for business.

We are, of course, all used to rapid change but over the next 25 years growth will accelerate with our population rising by about 50 percent. However, this increase in population will also bring an increase in traffic, which without forward planning and action, could restrict mobility and potentially damage the economy.

Milton Keynes has a transport network that, with investment, offers the potential to deliver a transport system that meets our future needs. In this Local Transport Plan, along with help from our partners, we aim to improve all types of transport so that we can cater for the present and meet the challenge of expansion.

This investment in transport is important because everyone needs to be able to get to activities such as jobs, shops, education and healthcare services. People need to be able to do this easily, affordably and safely. We are confident that this Local Transport Plan will deliver improvements and provide more choices for people, which will lead to an improved quality of life for everyone.

Councillor Graham Mabbutt Cabinet Member for Transport and Highways

5 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

6 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 11 The Local Transport Plan in Summary...... 11 Preparing for Growth...... 11 The Provisional Local Transport Plan...... 12 Influences on LTP2 ...... 12 Who is the LTP For? ...... 13 Progress Made Towards Meeting LTP1 Objectives ...... 14 Lessons Learnt From LTP1...... 15 The Community Strategy Vision...... 16 A Transport Vision for Milton Keynes ...... 17 Accessibility Planning...... 18 Programme ...... 18 Consultation ...... 19 Related Documents...... 19 Reporting Progress ...... 20 The Structure of This LTP ...... 20 2. POLICY CONTEXT ...... 21 Introduction ...... 21 National Transport Policy ...... 21 Sustainable Communities Strategy ...... 22 Planning Policy...... 23 The National Air Quality Strategy ...... 24 Health Policy ...... 25 Mobility Impairments ...... 25 Education Policy...... 25 Milton Keynes and Sub Region (MKSM) ...... 26 Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) ...... 29 Neighbouring Areas...... 31 Milton Keynes and the Surrounding Regions ...... 32 Partnerships ...... 35 Traffic Management Act ...... 38 Transport Asset Management Plan...... 38 Summary of Policy ...... 38 3. LOCAL CONTEXT ...... 39 Milton Keynes Profile...... 39 Transport Networks...... 43 Milton Keynes Future Profile ...... 52 Investment in Transport Networks...... 53 Context Overview...... 58 4. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 59 Introduction ...... 59 The Focus on Accessibility...... 60 Access to the Key Services...... 60 Relevant Strategies...... 62 Development of the Accessibility Strategy ...... 62

7 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Strategic and Local Accessibility Assessments...... 63 Priorities for the Local Accessibility Assessment...... 65 Identifying the Problems - Disadvantaged Communities...... 65 Safer Roads ...... 67 Tackling Congestion...... 70 Air Quality...... 76 Summary...... 77 5. VISION, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY...... 79 Introduction ...... 79 The Community Strategy Vision...... 79 A Transport Vision for Milton Keynes ...... 79 The Government’s Shared Priorities ...... 81 Local Objectives...... 81 Corporate Priorities ...... 82 Our Strategy...... 83 Strategy Impacts ...... 88 Summary...... 95 6. THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2006-07 to 2010-11...... 97 Development of the Implementation Plan...... 97 Corporate Funding Strategy ...... 98 DfT ‘Planning Guidelines’ for LTP2 ...... 100 Implementation Plan - Integrated Transport and Maintenance Blocks ...... 101 Further Integrated Transport Expenditure ...... 105 Implementation Plan - Other Sources of Funding For Integrated Transport and Maintenance Blocks Including TVSRP...... 108 Council Revenue Funding ...... 109 Implementation Plan - Major Schemes - LTP1...... 110 Implementation Plan - Major Schemes – LTP2 ...... 110 Implementation Plan - Committed Schemes – Sustainable Communities Plan...... 113 Implementation Plan - MKP Transport Delivery Plan 2006-2011 ...... 115 Schemes Identified by Other Delivery Bodies ...... 116 The Accessibility Action Plan ...... 117 Delivering the Programme...... 120 Value For Money...... 122 7. TARGETS AND INDICATORS ...... 125 Why Do We Need Targets and Indicators?...... 125 Summary of Progress Since LTP1 ...... 125 Local Transport Plan Benchmarking Group ...... 129 Monitoring Programme...... 135 8. THE NEXT STEPS ...... 149 Introduction ...... 149 Future Influences on the Final LTP ...... 149 Publication...... 149 Preparation of Delivery Report ...... 149

8 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 TABLES LIST Table 2.1 MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy Housing Growth 2001 - 2021 ...... 28 Table 3.1 Labour Force Breakdown (Annual Business Inquiry 2003) ...... 39 Table 3.2 District Centre Off-Street Car Parks (2004) ...... 44 Table 3.3 Mode Share From 2001 Census:...... 49 Milton Keynes Residents and Worker Table 3.4 Mode of Journey to Work (2001):...... 49 Milton Keynes Residents and UK Average Table 3.5 Milton Keynes Strategic Transport Investment Framework...... 54 Table 4.1 Mode Share for Journeys to Work (Census 2001)...... 61 Table 4.2 Air Quality Indicators...... 77 Table 5.1 The Potential Contribution of the Strategy Themes to the Objectives...... 85 Table 5.2 Improvement in Accessibility to Hospitals by Estates ...... 89 Table 5.3 Summary of Network Performance Statistics –...... 91 Improvement in Network Performance Resulting From the Strategy Table 6.1 LTP2 Settlement and Outline ‘Planning Guidelines’...... 100 Table 6.2 LTP2 Indicative Funding Allocations 2006-07 to 2010-11 By Scheme Type...102 Table 6.3 Weighted Relative Expenditure on Objectives Over The LTP Period ...... 105 Table 6.4 Further Integrated Transport Expenditure...... 107 Table 6.5 Sources of Capital Funding for Transport in 2005-06 ...... 108 Table 6.6 Council Transport Revenue Funding ...... 109 Table 6.7 Major Schemes Funded Through LTP2 ...... 110 Table 6.8 Committed Schemes Funded by the Sustainable Communities Plan ...... 113 Table 6.9 Abridged MKP Transport Delivery Programme...... 116 Table 6.10 Major Scheme Benefit to Cost Ratios ...... 123 Table 7.1 Summary of SITS Objectives and Indicators ...... 127 Shown Against the Shared Priorities Table 7.2 LTP2 Indicators...... 130 Table 7.3 LTP2 Targets and Performance Indicators 2006-07 to 2010-11 ...... 131

FIGURES LIST Figure 1.1 Key Strategies and Policies ...... 13 Figure 2.1 Transport Partnership Structure...... 35 Figure 3.1 Growth in Bus Patronage...... 50 Figure 4.1 The Accessibility Planning Process ...... 62 Figure 4.2 Proportion of Households Without Access to a Car...... 67 Figure 4.3 Child Casualties on Milton Keynes Roads ...... 68 Figure 4.4 Pedestrian Casualties on Milton Keynes Roads ...... 69 Figure 4.5 Cyclist Casualties on Milton Keynes Roads...... 69 Figure 4.6 Injuries to Powered Two Wheelers ...... 70 Figure 4.8 Traffic Delay in the Morning Peak in 2001 ...... 72 Figure 4.9 Traffic Delay in the Morning Peak in 2011 if No Action Taken...... 73 (Do-Minimum) Figure 4.10 Milton Keynes Network Performance...... 73 Figure 4.11 Comparative Journey Times Along Key Routes ...... 74 Figure 5.1 The Strategy Themes and Their Linkages...... 83 Figure 5.2 Improvement in Network Performance Resulting From the Strategy...... 90 Figure 5.3 Improvement in Route Journey Times Resulting From the Implementation of Our Strategy ...... 91 Figure 7.1 How Monitoring is Linked to the Wider Local Transport Plan Process...... 126

9 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 MAP LIST MAP 1 Regional Area Boundaries MAP 2 Strategic Location MAP 3 Population Density MAP 4 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 MAP 5 Percentage of Households Without a Car MAP 6 Transport Networks MAP 7 Redway Network MAP 8 Major Schemes Supporting LTP2 and Growth MAP 9 Milton Keynes Transport Improvements to 2016

ANNEX LIST ANNEX A Milton Keynes Accessibility Strategy Appendix A - Strategic Assessment, Contour & Thematic Maps Appendix B - Improvements in Accessibility to Hospitals, Ranking by Estates ANNEX B Local Transport Planning Joint Statement ANNEX C Milton Keynes Rights of Way Improvement Plan ANNEX D Transport Innovation Fund - Position Statement ANNEX E Finance Forms ANNEX F LTP2 Mandatory Indicators Proforma

APPENDIX LIST (separate document) APPENDIX 1 Bus Strategy – Public Transport Long Term Vision APPENDIX 2 Cycle Action Plan APPENDIX 3 Walking Strategy APPENDIX 4 Powered Two-Wheeler Strategy APPENDIX 5 Road Safety Strategy 2004 - 2010 APPENDIX 6 Traffic Management Plan APPENDIX 7 Framework for Transport Asset Management Plan APPENDIX 8 Strategic Environmental Assessment Report

10 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 1. INTRODUCTION

THE LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN IN SUMMARY

Over the next 25 years Milton Keynes will experience significant growth in population and employment. This will change the travel demands that our second Local Transport Plan (LTP2) is designed to deal with, as well as other longer-term interventions funded from other sources. The proposals in this LTP2 address four key issues: • Making transport truly accessible; • Making significant improvements in public transport in order to encourage modal shift; • Tackling the emerging congestion hotspots; and • Maintaining our existing transport assets so the quality of the infrastructure does not deteriorate.

PREPARING FOR GROWTH

1.1 The future of Milton Keynes is being determined by the proposals for new housing and related development. Over the period 2001-2031 there is planned to be an 80 percent increase in the numbers of households (from 87,437 to 157,970) as part of the growth plans outlined for the Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-region. This includes an increase of 16,320 households (17 percent) over the period of this second Local Transport Plan (LTP2) up to 2010-11. While the exact timing of this development may change, the Government’s proposals nevertheless present us with a significant challenge in planning for future transport provision. By 2031 the population of Milton Keynes could be around 300,000.

1.2 Associated with the growth in households will be increases in employment for a range of businesses, including the retail sector. A growing economy will cause employment to grow to 300,000 in the sub-region by 2031 - a doubling of current levels of employment. Notable developments currently under construction are the Central Milton Keynes World Trade Centre and the new football stadium at Denbigh North, all of which will generate significant travel demands.

1.3 Delivering the growth agenda will include a concentration of new developments (an intensification involving higher density development) particularly in Central Milton Keynes (CMK). Growth will have a major impact upon the transport network – we cannot delay and let the worst effects of congestion, environmental degradation, road condition, road casualties or declining public transport arise before we take action. This LTP sets out our programme to prepare for growth within the longer- term context provided by the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy and other documents. In line with the Sub-Regional Strategy, we aim to accommodate this growth by significantly improving public transport to and from new development areas, and more generally within the city, to reduce the reliance on the private car, which is very much a feature of Milton Keynes today.

1.4 Developing the transport system to accommodate growth will require substantial investment, much of which will proceed within the development planning framework and be undertaken in close co-operation with our partners, English Partnerships

11 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 (EP), via the Milton Keynes Partnership (MKP). We will also be working alongside the Highways Agency (HA) to improve the motorway and trunk road network that serves the city. To oversee the delivery of new transport investments, we have, with MKP, set up a Joint Transport Delivery Team (JTDT), which includes the Highways Agency and the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) amongst its membership.

THE PROVISIONAL LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN

1.5 Our LTP2 sets out how the challenges of growth will be addressed. It builds on the proposals made in the provisional LTP2 that was submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) in July 2005 and on which we have received detailed comments. Along with other documents, it sets out a programme of measures designed to address the impact that population growth will have on our transport networks. LTP2 covers the five-year period from 2006-07 to 2010-11 and replaces the first LTP (LTP1) published in July 2000 covering the five years from 2001-02 to 2005- 06.

1.6 The Transport Act 2000 requires all local transport authorities in , outside of , to publish their LTP2 by the end of March 2006. In developing LTP2 we have followed the ‘Full Guidance on Local Transport Plans’ published by the Department for Transport (DfT) in December 2004 and other guidance.

1.7 The LTP2 was submitted to the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) and the DfT at the end of March 2006. The provisional LTP2 formed the basis for consultation during autumn 2005. The LTP2 has been shaped from this exercise, especially in relation to the setting of targets and indicators, and in finalising the five-year implementation programme of scheme delivery.

INFLUENCES ON LTP2

1.8 Transport is not an end in itself but one of a combination of factors contributing to sustainable growth and social inclusion. As a consequence, LTP2 influences and, in return, is influenced by key national, regional and local strategies, policies and programmes.

1.9 Figure 1.1 illustrates key strategies and policies that have shaped our LTP and will shape the delivery of the LTP2 over its lifetime. Section 2 describes some of these policies in greater detail.

1.10 This LTP: • Sets transport in a wider context; • Presents our locally relevant targets (relative to outcomes rather than outputs); • Identifies the best value for money solutions relevant to local conditions (making use of relevant evidence of what works); • Makes best use of existing infrastructure; and, • Presents a programme of interventions with intermediate and long-term indicators and trajectories.

12 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Figure 1.1 Key Strategies and Policies

Key National Strategies and Policies • Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, 2003 • ‘The Future of Transport’ White Paper, 2004 • Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) • Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) • National Cycling Strategy (NCS)

Key Regional Strategies and Policies • Regional Planning Guidance (RPG 9), 2001 • Regional Economic Strategy (SEEDA), 2002 • Regional Transport Strategy (of RPG9), 2004 • Draft South East Plan, 2005

Related Key Local Strategies and Policies with Transport Impacts Related Key National Strategies and • Joint Economic Development Strategy Policies with Transport Impacts III, 2001 • Disability Discrimination Act 1995 LOCAL • Adopted MK Local Plan, 2005 • Crime and Disorder Act 1998 TRANSPORT • MK Local Agenda 21 Strategy, 2002 • National Air Quality Strategy, 2000 PLAN • MK Learning & Economic Strategy, • ‘Choosing Health’ White Paper, 2005 2005 • ‘Higher Standards, Better Schools For • MK Partnership Business Plan, 2005 All’, White Paper, 2005 • MK Community Strategy, 2004

Local Transport Strategies and Policies • Sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy • Walking • Cycling • Public Transport • Road Safety • Rural Transport • Traffic Management • Parking • Freight • Bridge Maintenance • Road Maintenance

WHO IS THE LTP FOR?

1.11 This document is intended to reach and inform a number of different audiences: • The local community (as residents and transport users): informing them of the key transport issues, how they will be addressed, anticipated impacts, the reasoning behind this with opportunities to comment and contribute further to this process;

13 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Local and regional partners: to present the key transport issues, how we intend to proceed and how partners can contribute to problem identification, and in the implementation and funding of appropriate solutions; and • Regional and national government: setting out our transport plans for the future and how these will contribute to regional and national policy objectives.

PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS MEETING LTP1 OBJECTIVES

1.12 We have made significant progress towards meeting the objectives in the first LTP. Listed below are some of the most encouraging achievements made possible through working in partnership with many organisations, notably English Partnerships (EP): • Bus use has risen from 6.4 million journeys in 2000-01 to 7 million in 2004-05 (a 10 percent increase). The results are especially encouraging because nationally (outside of London) bus use is falling. Our investment in bus infrastructure has improved the operating environment for buses as well as improving facilities for the passenger. We predict this success will accelerate once the CMK Public Transport Improvements Project has been completed. • The number of people killed or seriously injured (on Council controlled roads) has reduced by 46 percent (between the 1994-98 average and 2004). We have also cut the number of children killed or seriously injured by 42 percent. The results show we are well on our way to meeting national casualty reduction targets. These reductions were achieved due to our extensive programme of road safety engineering measures, supported by an education, training and publicity programme. • The CARSHAREMK scheme was set up to promote car sharing. Its 2,000 plus members can use priority parking spaces in CMK and discounted bus travel. It reduces car journeys to work, making car commuting cheaper and less stressful. In a recent survey, over 80 percent of the priority parking spaces were used. • A £1.5 million urban traffic management control (UTMC) system, funded by EP, to manage traffic flows more efficiently in Central Milton Keynes was successfully delivered. This scheme complements the variable message signing (VMS) system, which reduces ‘cruising’ by identifying parking availability. • New cycle routes built from Olney, and between the Lakes Estate and . New cycle facilities outside Milton Keynes Central rail station and other locations, as well as a ‘state of the art’ cycle safe. Cycling has increased by 22 percent1 between 2000 and 2005. • The DfT funded Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Access Improvement Scheme and EP’s ODPM funded Central Milton Keynes Traffic Management and Bus Priority Scheme taken forward as a single project with a value of over £12 million under the joint title of the Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Improvements project (see section 6 for a fuller description).

1 CMK cycle rack surveys

14 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Environmental improvements were made in through the Townscape Heritage Initiative, funded by English Heritage, Newport Pagnell Town Council and the Council. Improvements were made to pedestrian facilities, traffic management, and shop fronts. It also brought vacant floorspace back into use. It won a 2005 National Market Town Award in the ‘Environment and Culture’ category. • A Joint Transport Delivery Team (JTDT) recently set up to deliver new strategic transport improvements as the city grows.

LESSONS LEARNT FROM LTP1

1.13 We have however learnt a number of important lessons from the development and implementation of our first LTP, which we have addressed in developing our LTP2. The most important lessons are set out below: • Factoring public transport into our traffic model. In the first LTP we used a basic traffic model as an analytical tool to develop appropriate schemes for future traffic growth. Having acknowledged the benefits of the model, we invested further in this, so it now includes public transport demand modelling. From the model we can produce analysis that shows how our plans will, for example, contribute to reducing traffic flows and increasing public transport patronage. Some examples of outputs produced by the model can be found in sections 4 and 5. Some of these outputs were used in consultations with the public and stakeholders and have been largely welcomed as they clearly demonstrate that we are planning sufficiently for future transport needs. • The need to establish mechanisms to deliver partnership schemes. From the first LTP we experienced a number of difficulties delivering complex schemes where many different partners were involved. To smooth delivery of growth related transport infrastructure projects, a Joint Transport Delivery Team (JTDT) was set up with MKP and others. The JTDT provides better organisation, jointly agreed processes and the management of risk during a period of significant change to deliver the required outputs. • The need to improve performance management monitoring. In the first LTP we made excellent progress towards the national core targets, but progress towards local targets was somewhat mixed. We are now taking a corporate approach to target monitoring with a number of targets being included along with targets from other parts of the Council in a quarterly monitoring process. This ‘basket of key performance indicators’ supports the Council’s five-year corporate priorities, of which improving public transport (a key element of LTP2) is one. • Local targets should be achievable as well as challenging. In LTP1 we adopted journey to work modal share targets. However, these targets were not only over stretching they were also difficult to monitor effectively as they used Census data. Towards the end of LTP1 we set up an alternative monitoring programme for these targets and for LTP2 we have adopted a new set of targets where individual modes are monitored. This is therefore a much more robust approach and targets are therefore now “SMART” (i.e. specific, measurable, accurate, realistic and timely). Our LTP2

15 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 section on targets (section 7) is much clearer on how we have set and will monitor targets, again an improvement on LTP1. • The need to ensure that the community are fully engaged in the transport implications of growth. Milton Keynes has a history of rapid growth and as one of the designated growth areas for the South East this growth is set to accelerate. We have learned that in order to gain acceptance of our plans we need clear messages. We have therefore drawn up a communication strategy so that strong and clear messages can be presented. Furthermore, we acknowledge that our rapid growth means that we need to ensure decision makers are aware of developments and progress in Milton Keynes. We therefore plan to keep government offices, the DfT and other agencies better informed. • The need to put a stronger focus in travel planning. In the first LTP we successfully reduced the number of road casualties by 46 percent, which showed that our strategy adopted for LTP1 worked. From this we have set stretching targets for LTP2. However, during LTP1 progress delivering travel plans was slower than hoped. We now have a dedicated resource to develop travel plans and we are confident that this will deliver further road casualty reductions for LTP2.

THE COMMUNITY STRATEGY VISION

1.14 The Milton Keynes Community Strategy, Our Handbook for Change 2004-2034, states that Milton Keynes is:

“a city that thinks differently, embraces evolution and champions change.” Our vision is “to create a city that has soul, energy and dynamism. Our towns, villages, neighbourhoods and spaces will be desirable, fun, affordable, safe and accessible. It will be a learning city, built and developed by a skilled and well-educated population. People will thrive financially and emotionally on the buzz of living or working in this international city of the future.”

1.15 To put this dynamic vision into action the Community Strategy has been put together by the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP). The LSP is a high level partnership bringing together a wide range of public, private, voluntary and community interests. Its role is to provide the forum through which our citizens, businesses and service-providers work collaboratively to create the right atmosphere and environment that will enable the people of Milton Keynes to build the city to which we all aspire.

1.16 Milton Keynes faces a new set of challenges for the first half of the 21st century. The Government has identified Milton Keynes and the surrounding South Midlands area as the location for major new housing development as part of its Sustainable Communities Plan. Rapid growth will see the city nearly doubling in size over the next 20-30 years. This large programme of house building will need to be matched by significant new infrastructure, public services community development, business investment and employment opportunities. The future growth of Milton Keynes is an important aspect of this strategy, but equally important is the need to ensure that today’s residents and communities have a good quality of life and that the opportunities of growth are used to address areas of difficulty, including health

16 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 inequalities and the regeneration needs of some of our towns and neighbourhoods. We will also ensure that the needs of our rural communities are not overlooked.

1.17 Our Handbook for Change is our community’s blueprint for the future of Milton Keynes. It outlines the work we have to do together in order to build our city the way we want it. The growth that we are expecting will have a substantial impact on the residents and businesses of the whole area. Nevertheless growth is welcomed. The Community Strategy has been designed to involve individuals and organizations from the whole area in its development and execution.

1.18 Future plans for the city’s development (including those set out by the Milton Keynes Partnership) must reflect the priorities of the Community Strategy and show how they will help achieve our vision. It is important that we think both in the long and the short-term; that means looking ahead to the city and communities we want to create together over the next thirty years. We have a unique opportunity to carefully plan the next phase of our development in a truly collaborative way, taking into account what we all want for the future of our city and the surrounding rural areas. The Community Strategy sets out a framework for how this will happen.

1.19 The LSP sets out four action plans for delivering the vision: • Reinventing our city, places and spaces - developing high quality environments for the people of our city and neighbourhoods. • Delivering the best services - promoting social inclusion and delivering excellent, responsive services for the people of our area that are convenient and easy to access. • Facilitating participative communities - supporting people and organisations to be active and enterprising in civic life. • Managing change together - implementing and monitoring our Community Strategy so that it makes a tangible improvement to people’s lives. 1.20 The second action plan is particularly important for this LTP. It sets out the need for a transport system that provides the community with access to the things they want and is one of the most important aspects in the planning of Milton Keynes for the next 30 years. Concerns about public transport and accessibility stood out above all others in public consultations. We will therefore improve transport provision and foster urban growth in a way that improves accessibility for all sections of our community, promotes economic development and good quality of life. It is appropriate for us to take a strategic lead in looking at how to accelerate improvements in accessibility and to seek innovative solutions to improve the balance between the use of the private car and other transport modes.

1.21 The overarching strategy laid out in the Community Strategy sets the overall context for this LTP.

A TRANSPORT VISION FOR MILTON KEYNES

1.22 In 1999 we published the Sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy (SITS), which underpins the LTP2. The aim of the strategy is:

“To bring about a significant shift from the car to other ways of travelling, such as walking, cycling and public transport.”

17 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 1.23 Over the next twelve months the MK Transport Partnership will provide advice and opinion to assist the Council in developing a framework for SITS. The outcomes from the review will be applied to transport and growth over the next ten to twenty years.

1.24 During consultation on the LTP2 there was a high level of public support for the LTP2 vision and objectives.

1.25 This LTP2 has also been influenced by the emerging public transport vision. Recommendations from Stage 1 of the study included the establishment of a number of core bus routes, which would act as the focus for public transport movements, each linking with Central Milton Keynes. These would be supplemented by other services to meet other demands but generally to meet areas of lower demand. A hierarchy of services was recommended. We intend to adopt a ‘whole route’ concept that includes consideration of the whole bus experience including not only routes, timetables and vehicles but access to stops, information and supporting measures to engender cultural change in the city’s population which, historically, is strongly orientated towards car use. The number of bus users in the city is small compared with other similar size cities and if the suggested increase in public transport use is to be realised, then an entirely fresh approach must be adopted to offer an attractive alternative to car use.

1.26 The strategy contained in this LTP has also been influenced by the sub-regional Local Transport Planning Joint Statement, which can be found in Annex B.

ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING

1.27 We have embraced the principle of accessibility planning as being integral to this LTP2. We recognise that some individuals and groups are disadvantaged due to poor access to everyday services and amenities. Accessibility planning will act as a framework to assess whether people can get to key services: employment, health, education, shops and other key destinations. Along with partners, we will develop the framework necessary to achieve this vision, recognising that improving accessibility cannot wholly rely on passenger transport services, but should include other modes, such as walking and cycling, and utilisation of the planning process to bring services to people. See Annex A for a copy of our Accessibility Strategy.

PROGRAMME

1.28 In December 2004, the DfT published indicative integrated transport and maintenance block funding allocations for the five years of LTP2. The DfT refined these allocations in December 2005 but with a firm allocation for 2006-07 of £3.752 million. These funding levels have determined the targets and indicators, and the revised five-year implementation plan set out in the document. Final decisions for 2007-08 will be made in late 2006. The detailed programme for each year will then be approved through our corporate capital programme process.

1.29 This plan is a framework for action setting out how we, with our partners, will address key transport issues for the wider benefit of Milton Keynes. It will be implemented in a way, which brings about improvements for residents, employees and visitors and, therefore, will make a difference to communities, interest groups and businesses across the city.

18 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 CONSULTATION

1.30 There have been a number of important consultation exercises over the last year or so involving the public, key stakeholders and partners. The outcomes from these consultations have helped shape the LTP2. Key consultations include: • Public Transport Long Term Vision For Milton Keynes; • Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Improvements Project; • Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11; and • Western and Eastern Expansion Area Development Frameworks. 1.31 Detailed consultation took place on the provisional LTP2 during autumn 2005. This included information on our website and printed leaflets and reports distributed in libraries and other locations. We also held 12 days of exhibitions at various locations around Milton Keynes including being part of the Sustainable Cities event held in Midsummer Place.

1.32 Some of the most useful comments came verbally from these exhibitions as they were focussed on issues in the locations visited. We received many comments that access from Newport Pagnell to the hospital and Coachway is poor. From these comments, coupled with the Accessibility Planning modelling work, our LTP and Accessibility Strategy now includes proposals for a new bus service to link Newport Pagnell – Coachway – CMK and the hospital.

1.33 Our consultation on the development of an improvement scheme for the A421 between M1 J13 and Kingston pointed us quite clearly in favour of an on line improvement. This scheme is included as our first priority major scheme in this LTP.

1.34 The Provisional LTP2 was considered and scrutinised by members at a number of meetings, which included the: • Environment Policy Development Committee on 3 November 2005; • Performance and Review Panel on 24 January 2006; and, • Environment Policy Development Committee on 15 February 2006. 1.35 As a consequence, they have influenced the setting of the targets in LTP2 to make them challenging but realistic. It was also recommended that we set a target for congestion. We have, therefore, been exploring the feasibility of using CATMAN (Congestion and Traffic Monitoring and Analysis) to measure journey times. We intend to introduce a congestion target during the early period of LTP2.

RELATED DOCUMENTS

1.36 This LTP2 encompasses several documents that expand on various aspects of the transport planning process and on our proposals. These include: • Milton Keynes Accessibility Strategy (Annex A); • Bus Strategy - Public Transport Long Term Vision (Appendix 1); • Cycle Action Plan (Appendix 2); • Walking Strategy (Appendix 3); • Powered Two Wheeler Strategy (Appendix 4);

19 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Road Safety Strategy 2004 – 2010 (Appendix 5); • Traffic Management Plan (Appendix 6); • Framework for Transport Asset Management Plan (Appendix 7); and • Strategic Environmental Assessment Report (Appendix 8).

REPORTING PROGRESS

1.37 Progress over the life of this document will be reported in Delivery Reports (previously called Annual Progress Reports - APRs). A Delivery Report, which we will submit to DfT in July 2006, will review progress and performance over the life of LTP1 from 2001-02 to 2005-06. Assessment of our performance by GOSE and the DfT during 2006-07 will inform the future funding allocations for LTP2. We expect that Delivery Reports will only be required in alternative years.

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS LTP

1.38 The structure of this LTP closely follows that recommended by the DfT in its guidance to local authorities with eight main sections (including this one) which are supplemented by annexes bound in this document as well as other appendices bound in a separate document. The subsequent sections are as follows: • Section 2 describes the policy context within which the proposals contained in this LTP are set, including national, regional and local policies; • Section 3 outlines the local context for the LTP such as the key features of the city, including the transport network, and how they may develop in the future; • Section 4 describes the transport challenges currently faced by the city and what opportunities may exist for changing these over time; • Section 5 sets out the vision for how we see the future of Milton Keynes developing, our objectives for this LTP and our strategy to achieve these objectives and address the transport problems; • Section 6 reports in outline the delivery programme of measures that we will be undertaking over the next five years, including the major schemes, and a summary of the other investments that will be made in the area; • Section 7 sets out our targets and indicators and how we will measure the success of our delivery programme in achieving the objectives that we have set ourselves; and • Section 8 describes the next steps in the local transport planning process and how the LTP may change in the future.

20 Section 1 - Introduction Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 2. POLICY CONTEXT

INTRODUCTION

2.1 Transport is not an end in itself, rather a means of accessing day-to-day activities. The ability to travel offers real benefits. A transport system underpins the international competitiveness of the economy. A strong economy means increased travel. But this increased mobility comes at a cost, whether financial, social or environmental.

2.2 This Local Transport Plan is about ensuring that we benefit from increased mobility and access, while minimising the impact on people’s quality of life and the environment.

2.3 Decisions taken now will have a huge impact upon future generations. This plan makes sure that the decisions taken now are fully integrated with national, regional and sub-regional priorities. This section describes the wider policy context within which this LTP2 is set.

NATIONAL TRANSPORT POLICY

2.4 The Government has set out its long-term strategy for transport in The Future of Transport2. It states that we need a transport system that meets the challenges of a growing economy and the increasing demand for travel, whilst also achieving environmental objectives. The Government’s Strategy outlines that we must strive towards real choice for local journeys by bus, on foot, bicycle or by road, and rail particularly for inter-urban journeys. Ports and airports will also be improved to provide necessary international and domestic links.

2.5 The strategy is built around three main themes: • Sustained investment over the longer term. The Government has significantly increased investment in transport. • Improvement to transport management. In terms of reorganisation - such as the rail industry; as well as better traffic management to ease traffic congestion; and • Planning ahead. We cannot build our way out of the problems we face on our roads, so the Government will take the lead on a debate on a national road pricing scheme.

Shared Priorities 2.6 In 2002 the Government and the Local Government Association (LGA) agreed seven delivery priorities on which central and local government could work together to improve the quality of life for all and to build stronger, healthier and safer local communities. The seven shared public service delivery priorities are: • Raising standards across our schools;

2 The Future of Transport, Department for Transport, 2004.

21 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Improving the quality of life of older people and of children, young people and families at risk; • Promoting healthier communities and narrowing health inequalities; • Creating safer and stronger communities; • Transforming our local environment; • Promoting the economic vitality of localities; and • Meeting local transport needs more effectively. 2.7 The transport shared priority recognises that better transport is vital to help achieve broader public service objectives. Better transport is important to ensure that people have easier access to jobs and services, and so that journeys are more reliable, safer and lead to less pollution.

2.8 The concept of delivering the components of the shared transport objective is at the heart of our LTP2 and the strategy and programme of measures it contains. The shared transport priorities are: • Reducing congestion; • Improved access to schools, jobs and health care; • Improving safety; and • Improving air quality. 2.9 These are not the only components of our strategy - we also want to achieve our local objectives, which are: • Significant improvements to highway maintenance; • Improvements to the quality of life; • Encouraging sustainable growth; and • Encouraging modal shift.

The National Cycling Strategy 2.10 In 1996 the National Cycling Strategy process was brought forward by a Steering Group under the Chairmanship of the Minister for Local Transport. It drew together representatives from several stakeholders. The NCS was revised in 2005.

2.11 The objective is to establish a culture that favours the increased use of bicycles for all age groups; develops sound policies and good practice; and seeks out innovative, practical and effective means of fostering accessibility by cycle. Local authorities, through their LTPs, are expected to contribute towards the delivery of greater cycle use.

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY

2.12 The Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan3 seeks to sustain the economic success of London and the wider South East and to ensure competitiveness is sustained. Four key growth areas are identified in the region, of which Milton Keynes is one.

3 Sustainable Communities: Building for the future, 2003.

22 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 2.13 The Sustainable Communities Plan makes it clear that where new or expanded communities are built, they should be well-designed, high quality and attractive places to live and work.

2.14 The Plan sets out a long-term programme of action for delivering sustainable communities in both urban and rural areas. It aims to tackle housing supply issues, employment, transport, and infrastructure issues. The Communities Plan also tackles the quality of public spaces.

2.15 The Government’s aim for ‘Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future’ is to create prosperous, inclusive and sustainable communities for the 21st century, places where people want to live, that promote opportunity and a better quality of life for all.

2.16 The Plan includes not just a significant increase in resources and major reforms of housing and planning, but a new approach to how we build and what we build. PLANNING POLICY Planning Policy Statement 1, Delivering Sustainable Development 2.17 Government has recently set out in Planning Policy Statement 1, Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS14) that ‘sustainable development’ is the core principle underpinning planning. The planning system should facilitate and promote sustainable patterns of development. A commonly used definition is making sure that “development meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations”5.

2.18 We are committed to ensuring that the future growth of Milton Keynes supports sustainable development.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport 2.19 Land use planning has a key role in delivering the Government’s integrated transport strategy. By shaping the pattern of development and influencing the location, scale, density, design and mix of land uses, planning can help to reduce the need to travel, reduce the length of journeys and make it safer and easier for people to access jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking, and cycling. Application of these planning policies will help to reduce some of the need for car journeys (by reducing the physical separation of key land uses) and enable people to make sustainable transport choices. In this way, planning policies can increase the effectiveness of other transport policies and help maximise the contribution of transport to improving our quality of life.

2.20 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13)6 was first published in 1994 and revised in March 2000. The objectives of PPG13 are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level to:

4 PPS1, Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, ODPM, 2005. 5 World Commission on Environment and Development, 1997. 6 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport

23 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight; • Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; and • Reduce the need to travel, especially by car. 2.21 In order to deliver the objectives of PPG13, when preparing development plans and considering planning applications, local authorities should: • Actively manage the pattern of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport, and focus major generators of travel demand in city, town and district centres and near to major public transport interchanges; • Locate day to day facilities which need to be near their clients in local centres so that they are accessible by walking and cycling; • Accommodate housing principally within existing urban areas, planning for increased intensity of development for both housing and other uses at locations which are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling; • Ensure that development comprising jobs, shopping, leisure and services offers a realistic choice of access by public transport, walking, and cycling, recognising that this may be less achievable in some rural areas; • In rural areas, locate most development for housing, jobs, shopping, leisure and services in local service centres which are designated in the development plan to act as focal points for housing, transport and other services, and encourage better transport provision in the countryside; • Ensure that strategies in the development and local transport plan complement each other and that consideration of development plan allocations and local transport investment and priorities are closely linked; • Use parking policies, alongside other planning and transport measures, to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys; • Give priority to people over ease of traffic movement and plan to provide more road space to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport in town centres, local neighbourhoods and other areas with a mixture of land uses; • Ensure that the needs of disabled people as pedestrians, public transport users and motorists - are taken into account in the implementation of planning policies and traffic management schemes, and in the design of individual developments; • Consider how best to reduce crime and the fear of crime, and seek by the design and layout of developments and areas, to secure community safety and road safety; and • Protect sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices for both passenger and freight movements. 2.22 We are committed to the application of the PPG13 principles in our planning decisions.

24 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 THE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STRATEGY

2.23 The Government and devolved administrations published the UK Air Quality Strategy7 in January 2001. It sets standards and objectives to be achieved for eight key air pollutants between 2003 and 2008. For most of these pollutants, including particles, carbon monoxide and benzene, local authorities are charged with the task of working towards their achievement in a cost effective way. The strategy explains that it will be kept under regular review to take account of the latest information on the health effects of air pollution and technical and policy developments.

2.24 Air quality is getting better. Pollution will, in all probability, continue to fall. Vehicle emissions in particular will reduce further as new vehicles and fuels become cleaner, as older polluting vehicles are replaced. However, more needs to be done if we are to reduce the impact that air pollution has on public health and meet our national objectives and limits set under European legislation. This LTP will contribute to the central government objectives set out in the National Air Quality Strategy.

HEALTH POLICY

2.25 National policies recognise the importance that transport has on health. The British Medical Association’s assessments of the transport impacts on health have shown the adverse impact of vehicle emissions, traffic noise, increased congestion and social isolation8. Health also benefits from increases in physical activity such as walking and cycling.

2.26 Physical activity contributes not only to overall well-being, but is also essential for good health. The annual cost of physical inactivity and obesity in England exceeds £10 billion. Promoting physical activity is a cross-government priority whereby the health authority must work with the Council to promote, rather than inhibit, walking and cycling activity for transport and for recreation.

MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS

2.27 In addition transport providers must abide by the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and ensure that all passenger transport vehicles (buses and trains) are fully accessible to those in wheelchairs or with other disabilities. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 extends and clarifies its provisions.

EDUCATION POLICY

2.28 The White Paper, Higher Standards, Better Schools For All, published in October 2005, sets out the Government’s vision for, “radical improvement to the schools system by putting parents and the needs of their children at the heart of the schools system by bringing in new dynamism and providers. This will ensure that every school delivers an excellent education, that every child achieves their full potential and that the system as a whole is increasingly driven by parents and by choice”.

7 The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, and Northern : Working Together for Clean Air, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2001. 8 Road Transport and Health, British Medical Association, Board of Science and Education, 1997.

25 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 2.29 The document combines a description of recent changes, previously announced policy developments with proposals for the future. The five main policy thrusts behind the proposals outlined are: • The provision of a new school system in which schools (head teachers and governing bodies) have greater autonomy and responsibility, either through Foundation of the new Trust status; • The changing role of the Authority as a powerful champion of parents and pupils in their area and as a commissioner rather than a provider of education; • The provision of greater powers, choice and information to parents; • Tailoring education to the individual through personalised learning; and • The implementation of strong measures to tackle school failure, under- performance and poor pupil behaviour.

Extended Free Transport 2.30 Authorities will become responsible for providing free transport for those children whose families qualify for free school meals or are in receipt of the maximum level of Working Tax Credit to any of the three secondary schools closest to the home if such schools are further than two miles and up to six miles away.

2.31 Authorities are asked to look at additional journeys involved between schools and other providers to meet the demands of the extended schools agenda and the broader range of the 14-19 curriculum.

2.32 We welcome the initiative to extend the ease of access to schools for children from disadvantaged families. However, it must be supported by the appropriate level of funding. We will need to consider the impact that a possible reduction in the number of community schools, especially in the secondary sector, will have on the demand for transport, particularly during peak periods.

2.33 The ability for children from low income families to travel free of charge to any secondary school within six miles of their home address may result in pupil movement from less popular secondary schools to other schools in Milton Keynes and indeed to secondary schools in neighbouring authorities that are less than six miles from homes in Milton Keynes. For example, families on low incomes who are successful in securing a place at a school say in , and who live within six miles of the school, would have a right to free transport at the expense of Milton Keynes. Should the legislation proceed, this will need to be carefully monitored and appropriate and timely action taken where necessary.

MILTON KEYNES AND SOUTH MIDLANDS SUB REGION (MKSM)

2.34 The final Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) Sub-Regional Strategy (SRS) was published in March 2005 after a long period of public involvement and stakeholder engagement. The Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan also sets the wider context of the SRS. Milton Keynes has been highlighted as a ‘High Growth’ town, compared with others in the sub-region, including to the west and Northampton to the north. A map of the sub-region can be found in Map 1.

26 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 2.35 A balance must be struck between housing pressures and local economic development. New housing alone cannot make a vibrant sustainable community, but regeneration, improved infrastructure can if properly planned. In order to achieve the aspirations for MKSM, significant infrastructure investment will be required.

2.36 Consistent with priorities in the Regional Transport Strategies (see below), the strategy for movement in the sub-region is to: • Encourage a shift towards more sustainable modes of travel; • Take advantage of major improvements to the capacity, quality and accessibility of key transport facilities; and • Increasingly apply demand management approaches to influence travel behaviour and protect the capacity of the strategic highway network. 2.37 Investment in highway improvements is essential to ensure that strategically important movements are catered for efficiently.

Housing 2.38 Milton Keynes has been designated to accommodate an additional 46,833 households (including rural areas) by 2021 (compared with 2001); this is the largest amount in the sub-region. From 2021 to 2031 a further 23,700 new households are earmarked for development. The region as a whole has been designated over 169,000 new homes. The Milton Keynes Local Plan allocates 24,000 homes over the period 2001-2011. This includes a small number of homes allocated in the rural areas outside of growth areas. The MKSM SRS also identifies an additional 22,000 homes over the period 2011-21 which includes any housing arising from Milton Keynes’ growth provided in the district council areas of and Mid . It is also envisaged that the number of homes will be matched by a similar increase in employment of 46,000 jobs.

2.39 From 2021-31, the MKSM SRS expects Milton Keynes to continue to grow at broadly the same rate, adding a further 23,700 homes. However, it also advised that a longer-term vision for 2031 be prepared.

2.40 MKP will prepare this longer-term vision in consultation with key partners such as the regional assemblies, the Council, neighbouring local authorities and the wider community. It will provide the strategic direction needed after 2011, the end period of the Local Plan. It will, therefore, act as a stepping-stone for all future development plans at both regional and local level. This visioning work will be completed for MKP in 2006. As such it will inform the future growth of Milton Keynes and influence future Local Transport Plans. Table 2.1 shows the additional housing requirements set out as part of the MKSM SRS for Milton Keynes and the neighbouring area.

27 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Table 2.1 MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy Housing Growth 2001 - 2021

Location SRS increase in Dwellings 2001 - 2021 Aylesbury 15,000 , Kempston and Northern Marston Vale 19,500 , and 34,100 / and 26,300 Milton Keynes 44,900 Northampton 30,000 MKSM Growth Town Total 169,800

2.41 While recent progress in development in Milton Keynes has been slower than anticipated, at around 2,000 houses per year, we nevertheless need to plan for the proposed level of house building and the expected impact that this will have on our transport networks.

Employment 2.42 By 2031 it is estimated that the number of jobs in the sub-region will need to increase from 230,000 to 300,000 to sustain the level of population planned for. Depending on the location of these jobs there will be various impacts on transport in and around the city as a result of commuting but also arising from freight and distribution movements and business travel. It is anticipated that jobs will arise in a wide range of sectors, including retailing, as Central Milton Keynes is a regional shopping centre.

Travel and Transport 2.43 Growth in Milton Keynes will create an increase in the demand for movement, leading to increased traffic on the roads. If left unchecked, this will have a negative impact through more congestion, air pollution and social exclusion.

2.44 Planning for growth in transport terms in the MKSM sub-region will involve: • Encouraging a shift towards sustainable modes; • Upgrading public transport facilities and interchanges; • Introducing priority public transport corridors; • Increasing the use of demand management approaches to travel behaviour such as a parking policy; and • Investing in strategic highway improvements. 2.45 The growth anticipated for MKSM sub-region means that new public transport must be planned for alongside housing and economic development. Milton Keynes lies in the middle of the to arc. The Government (through the ODPM) is supporting a planning and development study (in the corridor between Bedford – Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Oxford) to investigate the relationship between transport and development opportunities, the potential for developer contributions and the implications for the East West Rail business case.

28 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGIES (RSS) 2.46 England is divided into eight regions; Milton Keynes is part of the South East Region, but is located at the intersection of two others; • ; and • . 2.47 Each Region must prepare a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The purpose of an RSS is to provide a clear strategy over the long-term. It provides guidance for local government delivery bodies on the scale, location and timing of development and the associated transport, employment and social infrastructure required. The RSS sets the context for local planning documents; the local planning document for Milton Keynes is the Local Plan. The Regional Assembly, or Regional Planning Body, for each region in England, has to produce a Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) as part of its RSS. The Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) for the South East 2.48 The RTS is informed by the delivery programmes of the Highways Agency and the (former) Strategic Rail Authority (SRA)9 and informs LTPs. A RTS is a statutory requirement of the planning system, as set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act of 2004.

2.49 The MKSM SRS is consistent with the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) published in 2004, which replaces Chapter 9 of the Government’s Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) published in 2001. As part of RPG9, the Regional Transport Strategy provides the spatial framework for the preparation of LTPs.

2.50 Building upon the vision in RPG9, the RTS sets out to deliver the following: “Our vision is a high quality transport system to act as a catalyst for continued economic growth and provide for an improved quality of life for all in a sustainable and socially inclusive manner; a regional transport system which progressively reaches the standards of the best in North West Europe.”

2.51 The RTS aims to achieve this by: • Promoting management of and investment in the system, fully utilising existing transport capacity before justifying investment in additional capacity; • Rebalancing the structure and use of the transport system in favour of more sustainable modes; and • Supporting the regional spatial strategy, particularly managing and investing in the interregional corridors and delivering urban renaissance and sub-regional objectives. 2.52 The RTS outlines 18 policy objectives; of particular relevance to Milton Keynes are the following: • Promotion of public transport and rapid transit for larger urban towns;

9 The functions of the Strategic Rail Authority have been taken over by DfT Rail.

29 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Mobility management, for example use ‘parking’ as a demand management tool, the promotion of travel plans for major employers and the proactive promotion of walking and cycling; • Ease the delivery of freight, including rail freight; • Creating inter-modal interchanges; • Prioritising key schemes for investment; and • Supporting innovative delivery partnerships for transport schemes. 2.53 The Government published the agreed RTS for in July 2004. It provides the policy framework applicable to 2016, but with a longer-term policy direction. The review of the RTS as part of the South East Plan has provided the opportunity to roll the policy framework forward to 2026.

2.54 The RTS provides the transport framework that other relevant regional strategies, such as the Regional Economic Strategy, needs to take into consideration. It also provides the context within which the plans and proposals for delivery agencies, such as the Highways Agency, the rail industry and local transport authorities, should be produced.

2.55 The RTS sets out that future investment in the region’s transport system must seek to improve overall levels of accessibility in a manner that builds upon recent changes in travel patterns by achieving a rebalancing of the transport system. This can only be achieved through a spatial approach to planning in which decisions on investment in the transport system is more closely integrated with economic, environmental and social objectives.

2.56 The RTS includes a series of investment frameworks that set out a list of major transport proposals for the period up to 2016. The Regional Assembly, working with transport delivery agencies across the region, has developed a prioritisation methodology. The methodology does not seek to duplicate the extensive appraisal process through which all proposals have to pass, and which enables the full range of economic, social and environmental factors to be carefully examined and balanced. Rather the methodology works on the basis of presenting information on individual proposals in relative terms.

2.57 The methodology considers each proposal under three headings: • Value for money – for which the Cost Benefit Ratio, as calculated in accordance with government guidance, is used; • Deliverability – determined using information contained in the Appraisal Summary Table prepared in accordance with government guidance; and • Policy compatibility – a combination of compatibility with national policy objectives (20 percent) and regional policy objectives (80 percent). 2.58 This prioritisation methodology was used by the Regional Transport Board to identify those proposals that should be added to the investment programme, including those affecting Milton Keynes. The Board initially focused on the period to 2010-11 (the same as for the LTP2).

2.59 Under the regional prioritisation Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Access Improvements has been identified as a committed scheme.

30 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 The Regional Economic Strategy (RES) for the South East 2.60 The RES covers the period 2002 - 2012 and is prepared by the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA). The strategy provides the foundation for all economic development and regeneration in the region. It is due to be reviewed during 2005-06.

2.61 The RES for the South East impacts upon every policy in the region. It sets out to attract business investment into the region and considers how to tackle deprivation and regeneration.

2.62 Economically the South East is viewed as one of the most successful regions in the UK. However, like other regions there is disparity across the region, with some areas experiencing strong economic growth while others suffer from deprivation. As a result some areas experience the problems of growth including more congestion and air pollution, while others suffer from problems such as social exclusion.

2.63 With an estimated Gross Domestic Product of £140 billion in 2002, the South East is home to many businesses. In order to keep the region competitive, strategic transport links are important. Equally important is making sure that the region is an attractive place for the location of new business in terms of a skilled workforce with a high quality environment to live. As a major growth area in the South East, we must ensure the needs of a higher population are met.

2.64 The RES highlights that the region’s growth prospects hinge upon an appropriate level of transport and infrastructure. The South East region has one of the highest car ownership levels already. This LTP2 seeks to ensure that strategic objectives set out in the RES as well as local transport objectives are met. The South East Regional Housing Strategy 2.65 The South East Regional Housing Strategy sets out the housing needs of the South East for 2006 onwards and calls for significant investment to tackle the shortage of high-quality, affordable homes. It also identifies the need to improve the condition of the region’s existing housing stock as a priority.

NEIGHBOURING AREAS

2.66 Many of the growth area issues affect not only Milton Keynes but also the neighbouring authorities. Therefore, along with Bedfordshire County Council, County Council, Luton Council and Northamptonshire County Council, we have produced a joint statement on Local Transport Planning (see Annex B). It commits these authorities to working together to improve local transport throughout the growth area, both amongst themselves and with other organisations such as the Government Offices, the Regional Assemblies, the Highways Agency, bus and train operators, Sustrans and the various Local Delivery Vehicles.

2.67 The joint statement will be used to support collaborative working between the authorities throughout the LTP2 period. Regular meetings between the transport planners will provide a framework for other specialists within the authorities to work together in delivering common schemes and programmes on the ground. To date agreement for action has focused upon delivering schemes which impact upon the

31 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Government’s Shared Priorities (see section 4 below), and several other key cross boundary issues such as travel plans, freight, inter-urban public transport, road and rail projects.

MILTON KEYNES AND THE SURROUNDING REGIONS

2.68 Milton Keynes is at the boundary of three Government regions: the South East in which it is located, the East of England and the East Midlands. It is therefore significantly influenced by the future developments that will arise in those regions. Both areas are expected to experience significant growth over the future thereby generating travel demands that will affect Milton Keynes.

East Midlands 2.69 The East Midlands is a large and diverse region. With a population of around 4.2 million, it has a distinctive polycentric settlement structure, based on the three major national cities of , and and the regional centres of Lincoln and Northampton. Four of the five major urban areas are within close proximity to Milton Keynes. In the south of the East Midlands region, the towns of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough have also been identified for growth as part of the MKSM strategy and as a result will significantly increase their populations and roles over the coming years. Just fewer than 40 percent of the population live in towns and villages of less than 10,000, which also makes the East Midlands one of the more rural regions in England.

2.70 Pressure is growing on surface transport infrastructure as travel demand increases. The main north-south road routes, M1 (which goes through the Milton Keynes Council area) and the A1, are increasingly congested, whilst poor east-west links remain a key issue. Improvements to the rail network in the region are important, particularly the that also serves Milton Keynes.

2.71 Nottingham East Midlands Airport is a key national and regional asset, particularly for freight. As for Milton Keynes the efficient movement of freight is vital to the East Midland’s economy.

2.72 Housing provision for the period 2001–2021 for the East Midlands Region is planned to be 15,925 a year of which Northamptonshire, the neighbour of Milton Keynes, will be 4,975 a year. Greater demand for transport will be generated from this growth, which will impact on Milton Keynes as it lies between the region and the capital.

2.73 To address the transport problems of the region the East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) sets ten priorities to guide the spatial development of the region of which two directly relate to transport: • To improve accessibility to jobs, homes and services across the region by developing integrated transport, ensuring the improvement of opportunities for walking, cycling and the use of high quality public transport; and • To promote the prudent use of resources, in particular through patterns of development and transport that make efficient and effective use of existing infrastructure, optimise waste minimisation, reduce overall energy use and maximise the role of renewable energy generation.

32 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 2.74 In line with government policy, the core strategy of the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS), which forms part of the RSS, is based on: • Reducing the need to travel, especially by car, and reducing traffic growth and congestion; • Promoting a step change in the level of public transport; • Making better use of existing networks through better management; and • Only developing additional highway capacity when all other measures have been exhausted. 2.75 On the basis of this core strategy and the RSS the following RTS objectives have been developed for the East Midlands which have been used as the basis for identifying the regional transport investment priorities: • Support sustainable development in the region’s principal urban areas and sub-regional centres. • Promote accessibility and overcome peripherality in the region’s rural areas. • Support the region’s regeneration priorities. • Promote improvements to inter-regional and international linkages that will support sustainable development within the region. • Improve safety across the region and reduce congestion, particularly within the region’s principal urban areas and on major inter-urban corridors. • Promote opportunities for modal shift away from the private car and road based freight transport across the region.

East of England 2.76 The East of England provides a major link between the UK and the continent through the ports of Felixstowe, Harwich and Tilbury, with international airports at Stansted and London Luton. The largest urban areas are Southend and Castle Point, with a population of 250,000 and Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis with a population of 230,000. Basildon, Cambridge, Chelmsford, Colchester, Ipswich, Norwich and all have populations between 100,000 and 200,000 and Bedford (including Kempston) is fast approaching a population of 100,000. About a quarter of England’s market towns are located in the East of England. The majority of the region's larger towns (over 25,000 population) are located along the region's southern fringes.

2.77 The transport network in the East of England region is strongly radial. Although there is some provision for orbital road movement the orbital rail network is poor. The links to London remain very important, particularly in the south of the region with large numbers commuting into London on a regular basis. Much of both the road and rail network is heavily congested. The multi-centred nature of the region provides generally good accessibility, although for movement between centres this is very dependent on the car. The rural parts of the region are particular car- dependent. On average people living in the East of England travel further to work than in any other region in the country, with a higher proportion than the average travelling by both car and rail. There are heavy freight movements through the region particularly from the Haven Ports.

33 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 2.78 The draft RSS provides for an additional 478,000 dwellings in the region between 2001 and 2021. It is estimated that these dwellings will house an extra 462,900 households equating to an increase of 648,000 in the total population of the region by 2021. In addition it is expected that household size in the region will continue its long-term decline over the next 20 years (from an average of 2.38 persons per household in 2001 to 2.24 persons per household in 2021).

2.79 Milton Keynes is located due west of the region, adjacent to the growing county of Bedfordshire, it will be affected by the increase in travel demands to and from the East of England which will comprise freight movements, commuting and tourism.

2.80 The East of England Regional Assembly has also prepared a Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) setting out its objectives for future transport priorities, which will also affect Milton Keynes.

2.81 Three of the 14 over-arching objectives of the East of England Regional Assembly directly relate to transport: • Objective 2 - improve social inclusion and access to employment and services and leisure and tourist facilities among those who are disadvantaged; • Objective 5 - deliver more integrated patterns of land use, movement, activity and development, including employment and housing; and • Objective 12 - minimise the environmental impact of travel, by reducing the need to travel, encouraging the use of more environmentally friendly modes of transport, and widening choice of modes. 2.82 In addition there are six objectives set out in the East of England RTS: • Improve opportunities for all to access jobs, services and leisure/tourist facilities; • Enable infrastructure programmes and transport service provision to support both existing development (addressing problems of congestion) and that proposed in the spatial strategy (economic regeneration needs and further housing growth); • Reduce the need to travel; • Reduce the transport intensity of economic activity, including freight; • Minimise the environmental impact of transport provision and travel, protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment; and • Improve safety and security. 2.83 To achieve these objectives the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) seeks to: • Widen travel choice: increasing and promoting opportunities for travel by means other than the private car, particularly walking, cycling and public transport, improving seamless travel through the provision of quality interchange facilities and raising travel awareness; • Promote the carriage of freight by rail and water and encourage environmentally sensitive distribution; and • Stimulate efficient use of the existing transport infrastructure, efficiently maintaining and managing existing road, rail, port and airport infrastructure.

34 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 PARTNERSHIPS

2.84 We have developed good working relationships with key partners in order to progress delivery. Indeed the latest Audit Commission report stated that the Council “uses imaginative partnership working to build capacity”. Our Transport Partnership structure is set out in Figure 2.1.

Joint Transport Delivery Team (JTDT) 2.85 The Milton Keynes Partnership and the Council have established a Joint Transport Delivery Team (JTDT) to ensure transport related infrastructure schemes required to support growth are effectively delivered (see section 6). One of the schemes, Milton Keynes Public Transport, was awarded Growth Area Funding (GAF) of £3 million in February 2006 to supplement £2 million from the Milton Keynes Tariff (see paragraph 6.80). It will improve accessibility between the Eastern and Western Expansion Areas linking to Central Milton Keynes and the Milton Keynes General Hospital. In total the group is co-ordinating £109 million of transport infrastructure investment over the next 10 years. Transport Partnership 2.86 The Transport Partnership is a sub-group of the LSP. It comprises an executive, with representatives from the Council, MKP, Parish Councils and the business community, a wider stakeholder group and three sub-groups covering sustainable transport, parking and infrastructure (see Figure 2.1). The Transport Partnership contributes towards delivering the following elements of the community strategy vision: • Being a modern city; and • Getting about easily.

Figure 2.1 Transport Partnership Structure

Milton Keynes Local Strategic Partnership

Milton Keynes Milton Keynes Council Partnership

Joint Transport Milton Keynes Transport MKC Transport Delivery Team Partnership Executive Delivery Team

Transport Partnership Stakeholder Group

Parking Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Sub-Group Sub-Group Sub-Group

35 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 2.87 Between 2005 - 2008 the key purposes and challenges of this partnership is to: • Provide advice and scrutiny on the overall strategy for Milton Keynes and the detailed implementation of proposals on car parking and transport issues. • Provide expert advice and opinion to assist the Council in developing a framework for a Sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy (SITS). • Achieve a modal shift away from the reliance on the car. • Improve the quality, quantity and viability of public transport services.

Milton Keynes Partnership Committee 2.88 The Milton Keynes Partnership Committee (MKPC) was established in June 2004 to oversee the future growth of specific areas in Milton Keynes. It is a legally constituted committee of English Partnerships (EP) that exercises development control planning powers within these specific areas.

2.89 It also has broader delivery functions across a wider area delivering growth related development including Central Milton Keynes (CMK) and leads on longer-term growth.

2.90 The MKPC has two members from EP, three from the Council, three from the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), two independent members and is chaired by another independent member. Additionally, there is one member each from Buckinghamshire County Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council, the South East England Development Agency, the Housing Corporation and the Government Office for the South East (none of whom have voting rights).

2.91 The key principles, which underpin MKPC’s delivery plan for a required 71,000 new homes over the period of 2001 to 2031 are: • The need to maintain a balance between jobs and homes in the city; • A reduction in the need for and length of journeys by car; • Focussing new developments in or around existing centres; and • Where feasible, around key interchanges on public transport corridors. 2.92 The aims of the plans for the expansion areas are to maximise the potential for adopting new approaches to layout, housing density, design and mixed uses, and encouraging greater use of walking, cycling and public transport. These plans are outlined in comprehensive development frameworks that will be adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents.

2.93 The transport objectives flowing from these aims are to: • Significantly improve public transport within Milton Keynes and encourage a greater use of non-car alternatives; • Ensure that the Milton Keynes road network is continuously improved and upgraded in line with the development of residential and employment land; and • Ensure that external access to Milton Keynes is improved, by road and rail.

36 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 English Partnerships 2.94 English Partnerships (EP) is the national regeneration agency, helping the Government to support high quality sustainable growth in England. EP has five core business areas and delivers its objectives through: • “developing its own portfolio of strategic projects; • acting as the Government’s specialist advisor on brownfield land; • ensuring that surplus public sector land is used to support wider Government objectives, especially the implementation of the Sustainable Communities Plan; • helping to create communities where people can afford and want to live; and • supporting the ‘Urban Renaissance’ by improving the quality of our towns and cities.” 2.95 EP aims to: • “work closely with public and private sector partners; • secure the resources to work on large and often complex projects; • set benchmarks for high quality urban design, construction and environmental sustainability; • act as a catalyst for development by being involved at an early stage to prepare sites for development by its partners; • devise and encourage innovative ways of dealing with difficult problems; • actively engage with local communities; and • apply its experience, expertise and skills, particularly in masterplanning, land remediation and regeneration”. 2.96 We have been working particularly closely with MKP over the development of a range of transport projects in and around the city10. For example, we have set up a Joint Transport Delivery Team, to oversee the development and delivery of strategic transport schemes in the area.

Road Safety Partnership 2.97 We work closely with neighbouring authorities and the Thames Valley Road Safety Partnership to address local safety concerns. For example, following a series of fatal collisions on the A421, (which has sections in Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes), we have asked the Thames Valley Road Safety Partnership to consider installing a mobile road safety camera. This is at a location that previously did not meet the Government’s criteria. In addition, new white lining has now been applied to improve safety on the bend in the A421.

10 This is described in more detail in Section 6.

37 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT11

2.98 As a transport authority, we have a statutory duty to manage the transport networks in Milton Keynes in order to create a more effective system and to reduce congestion. New powers have meant that we have appointed a traffic manager to lead this work. The designated Traffic Management Officer is the Chief Highways and Transport Engineer. We have developed the final Traffic Management Plan (see Appendix 6).

TRANSPORT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.99 The Framework Transport Asset Management Plan is set out in Appendix 7. It is based on the framework produced by the County Surveyors’ Society (CSS) together with the Local Authority Technical Advisers Group so that we conform to the requirements of Whole Government Accounting.

SUMMARY OF POLICY

2.100 The policies at the national and regional level set the context for the proposals that we are recommending in this LTP. Other constraints exist, including our existing and planned transport networks as well as the characteristics of the local population and economy. These are described in section 3.

11 Transport Management Act, Department for Transport 2005.

38 Section 2 – Policy Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 3. LOCAL CONTEXT

MILTON KEYNES PROFILE

3.1 Milton Keynes is located in the South East of England, approximately midway between and London. Milton Keynes shares a border with three other local authorities, with Bedfordshire to the east, Northamptonshire to the north and west and Buckinghamshire to the south and west. Milton Keynes is a sub-regional centre which impacts upon communities outside of the borough area, a factor, which needs to be borne in mind as transport, plans and schemes are developed. The strategic location of Milton Keynes and the regional area boundaries are shown in Maps 1 and 2.

3.2 In June 2004, Milton Keynes was home to 217,000 people, compared to 178,000 in 1991 and 213,000 in 2001. 84 percent of this population (182,000) live within the designated area of Milton Keynes city, which accounts for 30 percent of the area that makes up the borough. The distribution of the population across the borough is shown in Map 3. Given that the design of Milton Keynes has been based upon low density housing, there are few areas of the city characterised by the high population densities of most other urban areas in the UK. Only the Denbigh ward has population densities higher than the England and Wales average (which includes both urban and rural areas).

Milton Keynes’ Economy 3.3 The latest Annual Business Inquiry reveals that the Milton Keynes labour force is dominated by the service sectors, with almost one third employed in the distribution, hotels and restaurant sector, and a further 25 percent within the banking and finance sector. Proportions employed in traditional industries such as agriculture and manufacturing are lower in Milton Keynes than the Great Britain average. The relative proportions are indicated in Table 3.1 below, as well as the breakdown for the Great Britain labour pool as a whole.

Table 3.1 Labour Force Breakdown (Annual Business Inquiry 2003)

Sector Milton Keynes (%) Great Britain (%)

Agriculture & Fishing 0.1 0.9 Energy & Water 0.1 0.7 Manufacturing 10.4 12.6 Construction 2.1 4.4 Distribution, Hotels & Restaurants 31.3 24.7 Transport & Communication 9.0 6.0 Banking, Finance & Insurance 25.7 19.8 Public Administration, Education & Health 17.5 25.8 Other Services 3.8 5.2

39 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 3.4 One particular feature of the Milton Keynes economy is the importance of the logistics and distribution sector. Milton Keynes, by virtue of its proximity to the main UK population centres and its relatively easy access to the strategic road and rail networks, is a favoured location for warehousing and distribution facilities. Although, this has a positive impact upon the local economy, it leads, however, to significant transportation challenges associated with the goods movements related to this activity.

3.5 The unemployment rate in Milton Keynes is fairly low with 1.9 percent unemployed in June 2005. This is higher than the South East average of 1.5 percent but lower than the United Kingdom average (2.3 percent).

Night Time Transport 3.6 Central Milton Keynes has a thriving night time economy. However, concerns over public safety, and to help people access jobs to serve this economy, led us to successfully apply for a grant of £30,000 from GOSE to create a solution to these public safety and accessibility problems.

3.7 To develop this project, a group was set up with representatives from the Council’s Passenger Transport, Crime and Community Safety, and Taxi Licensing teams along with our partners: Thames Valley Police, Xscape, Theatre District and the centre:mk. The group has commissioned a study to assess in more detail the current needs of users so that a suitable solution can be implemented to meet these needs and address the safety concerns.

Land Use 3.8 Although Milton Keynes is characterised by the urban developments associated with the city, this in fact only accounts for 30 percent of the land area. The remaining 70 percent is rural in nature, with a number of villages and small towns dispersed across it. The pre-new town conurbations of , and Bletchley, although retaining their characters as local centres, now fall within the designated boundaries of the city. Newport Pagnell and Woburn Sands are just outside the designated city area and the market town of Olney is located in the northern part of the rural area.

3.9 One of the most notable features of Milton Keynes city is its grid system, whereby the city has been organised around a road pattern of ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ carriageways. This enables road access to any point of the city by a variety of routes. The outcome of this system is that each ‘square’ contained within the grid is a self-contained community within its own right. Some grid squares are wholly given over to industrial or distribution related land uses, others are predominantly residential, each with a variety of local services.

3.10 The focal point of the city is Central Milton Keynes (CMK). Although there are some residential units in CMK, the majority of Milton Keynes residents see this as the main leisure and retail area, housing the centre:mk and Midsummer Place shopping centres, Xscape Snow Dome, two multiplex cinemas, one theatre, the National Hockey Stadium and a wide variety of bars and restaurants. Central Milton Keynes is also the location of key transport nodes for the city, including the main railway station and the main bus interchange for local and regional bus services.

40 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 3.11 In March 2005, there were over 92,000 dwellings in the borough, of which approximately 77,000 were within the city boundaries. Within the city, housing has tended to develop ‘outwards’ from Central Milton Keynes, and largely on a grid-by- grid basis. Housing in Milton Keynes tends to be low density, in line with the design guidelines and vision set out during the original planning for the city. Of the few higher density housing areas, the majority are located in Central Milton Keynes. The most notable of these is the new multi-storey development at Campbell Heights.

3.12 As mentioned above, Milton Keynes is a favoured location for centralised distribution and production facilities. Many companies have been attracted to the area as a result of the accessibility to the strategic road network and the nature of the labour pool. Additionally, many developments have been newly built, enabling manufacturers or distributors to tailor the new facilities to optimise their operational efficiency. There are several grid squares that are solely used as employment areas, with those areas close to the M1 particularly attractive for National Distribution Centres. For example, Tesco have two large distribution centres at Fenny Lock and Kiln Farm, and large warehouses serving companies such as Waitrose and ACR Logistics dominate Brinklow.

3.13 There are offices located across Milton Keynes, ranging from business parks with a variety of small businesses to dedicated facilities for a single occupier, for example Parcelforce in Know hill. However, the focus for office-based employment is in Central Milton Keynes. Among the several hundred organisations located in CMK are the head offices of Argos and Exel Logistics. The office space in CMK will be extended over coming years, and this has commenced with the construction of the Central Business Exchange III, a high density office facility incorporating a World Trade Centre. It is notable as it is the first truly high density land use in Milton Keynes.

Deprivation and Mobility 3.14 Milton Keynes ranks 204th out of 354 English local authorities in the 2004 Index of Multiple Deprivation12 (IMD). This considers factors including health, education, access and employment. This ranking masks a considerable variation across the borough, as shown on Map 4. For example, is amongst the 10 percent most deprived wards in the country, whereas Newport Pagnell North, Newport Pagnell South and Olney are all within the 10 percent least deprived. Residents in deprived wards tend to suffer from poor access to services due to lower car ownership levels while wealthier people can access most services easily using the grid road network.

3.15 In 2001, car ownership rates in Milton Keynes were 0.51 cars per resident or 1.26 cars per household. This rate is between 10-15 percent higher than the national average, and is a similar rate to affluent and predominantly rural districts. The rate is much higher than urban centres with a similar population. 2003 figures reveal that there are 19 percent of households within the borough that do not have access to a car, and residents at these dwellings rely on other modes for personal mobility. The distribution of houses without a car is shown in Map 5.

12 Index is 1 being the most deprived and 354 being the least deprived.

41 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Quality of Life Issues 3.16 Along with other documents, the proposals contained in this LTP are intended to contribute towards improving a wide range of quality of life issues. The ‘MK Community Strategy, Our Handbook for Change 2004-2034’, is designed to generate a prosperous community in the city, including neighbourhood renewal in places such as Bletchley. Our road safety strategy (see Appendix 5) will help develop a safer community. The proposals for enhancing public transport set out here will make a significant contribution to reducing noise and limiting the impact of the planned growth upon climate change.

3.17 We will encourage greater walking and cycling both of which will help improve the health of individuals. Along with MKP we have developed a ‘Public Realm Strategy’ for CMK, designed to maintain the quality of public space, landscape and diversity in the area. Taken together we believe that these proposals will ensure that the coming developments will enhance, rather than detract from, the quality of life in Milton Keynes.

3.18 Along with MKP, we are also developing a ‘CMK Wayfinding and Signage Plan’ to make CMK easier to move around, to encourage walking and cycling, and to promote the city. It will improve ‘legibility’ – the ease at which people can understand a place.

Quality of Life Strategy for Older People 3.19 In 2005, we commissioned the Health and Social Care Advisory Service (HASCAS) to develop a vision and strategy for older people living in the Milton Keynes Council area.

3.20 The vision and strategy is based upon wide ranging consultation with current service users, carers, people who will become older people, council officers and members, health, service providers and voluntary organisations. The strategy also embraces current government drivers.

3.21 In recent years, the Older People’s agenda has received heightened priority particularly by the Government. In 2001 the National Service Framework for Older People was launched, which has been pivotal in ensuring improved health and social care practice standards.

3.22 In 2004, the Department of Work and Pensions produced ‘Opportunity Age’ defining areas that should be monitored to establish what services Local Authorities are developing. In April 2004, the Government announced its intention to develop a new ‘vision’ for adult social care based on the principle that everyone in society has a positive contribution to make and should have the right to control his or her own lives.

3.23 In improving and developing services for older people, we will seek to improve health and quality of life, ensure freedom from discrimination/harassment, promote economic well being, promote personal dignity, ensure older people contribute positively to developments, and enable them to exercise choice and control.

3.24 In order to develop and implement the vision and strategy it is essential the Council works in a meaningful partnership with the people for whom the strategy will affect.

42 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 These are people over the age of 55 and also those who will become ‘older people’ and are Milton Keynes residents.

3.25 The community as a whole, the Council and its partners will work together to: • Deliver services in new ways designed to meet the changing needs of older people. • Develop a sense of inclusion and ownership across the whole community. • Raise the profile of older people. • Challenge discriminatory stereo- types and practice. • Enable older people to make informed choices about council services. • Develop a culture in which service providers, council employees and partner agencies treat older people with respect and dignity. 3.26 In Milton Keynes, the definition of an older person means someone over the age of 55; hence there will be a wide and diverse population of older people with differing needs in the area. Key facts about older people in Milton Keynes are: • Life expectancy is 76.4 for men and 80 for women. • 21 percent of the population in Milton Keynes will be aged over 60 years by 2031. This is an increase of 150 percent. • The population of people from black and minority ethnic groups who are growing old in Milton Keynes is increasing. • A higher percentage of older people live in the older towns and villages in the North, East and Southern wards of the area. • Over 55 percent of people aged over 60 years attend the theatre. • Unemployment in this age group is below the national average. • Older people in Milton Keynes make a significant contribution to community stability for example, by providing unpaid childcare to enable parents to work, and by undertaking voluntary work in the community. • Older people in Milton Keynes are known to be active community participants. 3.27 The Vision for transport for older people originated in the first LTP. Council initiatives to improve transport for older people in Milton Keynes include: • Extending concessionary fares. • Introducing Age Concern parking at the hospital. • Developing transport services to serve older people in high density wards. • Consulting with older people through the transport review process. • Expanding the flexible transport service to new areas of the town. • Undertaking a review of Community Transport. TRANSPORT NETWORKS

3.28 The nature of the transport networks has a fundamental impact upon the movement of people and goods around and through the borough. The management and

43 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 development of these networks is a vital element in sustaining the vitality of the city and the surrounding areas as they continue to grow.

The Road Network 3.29 The strategic road network is dominated by the M1, which runs north south through the borough. Junction 14 is the only motorway junction within the area, linking to the A509. However Junction 13 (in Bedfordshire) is the preferred point of access from the southern areas of the borough. This junction is served by the A421, a route linking Bedford and , but passing east-west through Milton Keynes. The A509 and A422 to the east of the M1 are the main routes providing access to the rural areas, and the villages and towns in the north of the borough. Another key north-south route is the A5; this serves the west of the borough, and runs through the city (but does not form part of the grid network). The transport networks within the borough are illustrated in Map 6.

3.30 This means that for long-distance traffic travelling north to south, the motorway and trunk routes are clearly defined, however, for east-west movements there are several alternatives, none of which are segregated from local traffic. Most notably, the A421 and A422 form part of the city grid (the H8 and H3) for part of its length.

3.31 Within Milton Keynes, roads are organised on a grid system, with a road pattern of horizontal and vertical carriageways. This provides road vehicles with a number of alternative routes to reach their destination. These roads are a mixture of dual and single carriageways, and for the most part are subject to national speed limits. Intersections between these roads are predominantly at roundabouts. Within the grid squares, road layouts are designed in such a way to discourage through traffic. A regular feature of these roads, particularly in residential areas, is the inclusion of traffic calming measures, such as speed humps.

3.32 There are over 20,000 public parking spaces in Central Milton Keynes, including five multi-storey car parks. The majority of parking spaces however, are at street level and are governed by pay and display. Major changes to the pay and display scheme took place in 2002, and prices now vary across the area. A number of free parking spaces in Central Milton Keynes remain plus at weekends, some pay and display spaces are available free of charge. We have a recently approved a Parking Strategy to ensure that facilities are developed in line with our strategic objectives.

3.33 Most parking elsewhere in Milton Keynes is provided free of charge, however in some older district centres parking is time limited. Off-street car parking in district centres is shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 District Centre Off-Street Car Parks (2004)

District Centre Spaces Bletchley 660 Newport Pagnell 440 Olney 40 Stony Stratford 370 Woburn Sands 60

44 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Buses and Coaches 3.34 Over 20 bus routes currently serve Milton Keynes, not including express or long distance services. Most of these routes can be defined as ‘radial’ routes – that is the routes are between two points in Milton Keynes via the centre. Only two routes do not provide links to the city centre. We have developed four quality bus initiative routes – route numbers 4, 5, 8 and 23. On these routes, buses run to increased frequencies (route 5 has a ten minute frequency between Bletchley and CMK), together with low floor buses, raised stops and new shelters. On the other routes, services are less frequent and passengers may need to consult a timetable if not catching their regular bus.

3.35 MK Metro operates the majority of local bus services on a commercial basis, however the Council supports some weekend and almost all evening services. The Group recently acquired MK Metro and we look forward to working in partnership with them. The Managing Director of Arriva UK Regions was quoted at the time as saying ‘”This acquisition gives Arriva a good opportunity to expand our presence in the south of England. Milton Keynes’ population is set to expand over the next five years, giving us good growth prospects.”

3.36 Other bus operators provide a number of bus routes linking the rural districts to Central Milton Keynes.

3.37 The X5 Oxford to Cambridge regional bus service serves Central Milton Keynes, providing direct links to Buckingham and Bedford. The X4 regional service connects CMK to Northampton, Kettering, Corby and Peterborough, on a north-south axis.

3.38 Express coach services call at the , adjacent to Junction 14 of the M1. The Coachway, with an estimated 275,000 customers per annum, is located 5 kilometres from Central Milton Keynes, with a local bus service (Service 200) providing a link to the city centre every 30 minutes throughout the day. Service 200 is also described as the Milton Keynes Park & Ride service, and as such operates at a higher frequency (four buses per hour) on Saturdays.

Taxis 3.39 The licensing of Hackney Carriages was deregulated in 2002, removing the restriction on the number of licences that local authorities can issue. As of 2005, the number of vehicles licensed by the Council was 126 Hackney Carriages and 600 private hire vehicles.

Community Transport 3.40 One of our priorities is to “support people who need help to live independent lives”. To help achieve this, we provide demand responsive Community Transport (Fastchair) and Group Travel for frail elderly and disabled people who are not able to use or have difficulty using mainstream public transport.

3.41 Following a Commission for Social Care Inspection Report in September 2004, we commissioned a review of Community Transport services. The review also considered the role that buses and taxis can play in meeting these needs. Ideally as many as possible will use mainstream buses, hence the programme to invest in level access bus stops and low floor buses.

45 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 3.42 The review looked in detail at data sources to establish potential need in areas such as those with low car ownership (using the Accession model described in the Accessibility strategy), levels of disability and mobility (including analysing reasons for not travelling) and age profiles. This detailed analysis was used to help redesign the service. Although analysing the data was an important first step, the views of users, partners and stakeholders were also sought. A variety of methods were used: • Postal questionnaires of voluntary and community sectors plus schools; • Consultation seminar with users and other stakeholders; • Face to face interviews with providers of transport; and • Postal questionnaire of existing users and concessionary bus travel users. 3.43 Having established needs, including stakeholder and user input, the redesigned service seeks to address problems experienced by users. For example, users reported: • Difficulties making bookings due to busy phone lines; • Inability to make regular bookings (a particular problem if attending an education course, regular clinics or regular support sessions); • Problems finding out information on services (including if a vehicle was late); and • Uncomfortable vehicles. 3.44 The difficulties with the service were probably the major reason for ridership falling over the last few years. Similar shortcomings were also identified in the Social Care Inspection Report.

3.45 Key review recommendations are being taken forward during 2006 including: • Replacement of the existing Group Travel and Fastchair services with a more focussed Group Travel service and expanded Fastchair, together with an improved booking system; • Discounted taxi fares; • Improved quality of taxi services through training and partnership working; and • “Passengers voice” to ensure consultation and constant feedback. 3.46 We have therefore identified problems, listened to our customers, partners and stakeholders and redesigned a service that is expected to better meet their needs. This meets another of our priorities to “improve the experience of our customers”. The enhanced services will substantially improve accessibility for those residents in most need. We have adopted a target in LTP2 (see section 7) to increase ridership of Community Transport by 50 percent by 2011.

Concessionary Travel 3.47 We will be offering free concessionary off-peak bus travel to all those over sixty and qualifying disabled people from April 2006 as required by law. We will also continue to offer flat fare travel of 35 pence per journey before 0930 for these users. The

46 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 same flat fare is also available for travel at any time on local rail journeys within the borough.

3.48 Unfortunately free travel is not available on our Community Transport services, but our proposed discounted taxi travel for qualifying people will go some way to reducing of social exclusion.

3.49 We also take seriously the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda and therefore will continue to provide 35 pence flat fares for any bus or rail journey within the borough for all children and young people up to the age of 19 who are in full time education.

The Rail Network 3.50 The West Coast Main Line (WCML) is the major rail route passing through the borough from north to south. The WCML directly links Milton Keynes to London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. There are three stations on this line within the borough, Wolverton, Milton Keynes Central and Bletchley. Silverlink, who provide stopping services between Northampton and London Euston, serves all three stations. Milton Keynes Central is also served by Virgin Trains as part of their flagship London to Glasgow route. Recent timetable changes have reduced the morning and evening peak hour Virgin train services through Milton Keynes Central.

3.51 In addition, local Silverlink services on the in the south of the borough provide hourly services between Bedford and Bletchley. Bletchley offers interchange with services to London Euston, and Bedford offers interchange opportunities for routes to London St Pancras, London or the East Midlands. There are four stations on this route within Milton Keynes: Bletchley, , and Woburn Sands.

3.52 There are two operational rail freight terminals within the Milton Keynes area. RMC operate an aggregate terminal in Bletchley, and there is a stone terminal at Wolverton owned by ANC. Additionally, Alstom operate a facility at Wolverton used for the maintenance of rolling stock.

Walking and Cycling (Redways) 3.53 Although the low density development of Milton Keynes means that origins and destinations tend to be further apart than in other comparable urban areas, there are specific networks in place to facilitate walking and cycling. Within the city there are over 280 kilometres of Redways, shared use cycle and pedestrian paths that are segregated from the road network. As indicated in Map 7, the Redways are more limited in the older centres such as Bletchley and Stony Stratford, and are also less prevalent in Central Milton Keynes itself.

3.54 The Milton Keynes Development Corporation developed the Redways with the aim of creating a coherent network of routes, separate from the grid road network, which would provide attractive, safe, direct and convenient access for pedestrians and cyclists at a local, district and city level.

3.55 Based on the 2001 Census, the total number of people aged 16-74 who were in employment, who travelled to work each week by foot or cycle in Milton Keynes was 9.87 percent of the working population, some 10,670 people. The Milton Keynes population that cycled to work of this group equated to 4 percent.

47 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 3.56 Whilst the Redways form a comprehensive network through the district, there is a limited network in Central Milton Keynes. The National Cycle Route (NCR) 51, which is part of the SUSTRANS National Cycle Network (NCN), has a signed route through Central Milton Keynes, along Midsummer Boulevard, which now forms part of the Universities Route, linking Oxford and Cambridge. The other NCR is the link north to south. This route, NCR6, will eventually run from Northampton to Dunstable; the section from Bletchley to has now been constructed and passes through the Bletchley area of Milton Keynes.

3.57 Outside of the urban area, the walking network is based on public rights of ways such as footpaths, bridleways and byways. There are several long-distance footpaths passing through the borough, and these would mostly be used for leisure purposes. In addition, part of a Redway route was constructed between Olney and Newport Pagnell during the previous LTP period, to provide links between the city and the rural areas.

Waterways 3.58 The , constructed during the 19th century to improve trade links between London and Birmingham, passes through the . Although there has been minimal commercial traffic on this section of the route for over 60 years, the canal is used for leisure, particularly during the summer months. The navigation authority for the canal is British Waterways who are promoting a new canal that would link Bedford to Milton Keynes.

Airports and Air Travel 3.59 There are no airports within Milton Keynes. The nearest main airport is London Luton Airport, which is within one hour’s drive via the M1. Although there is no direct rail link between Milton Keynes and London Luton Airport, a direct hourly coach service between the Milton Keynes Central Rail Station and the airport is operated by Virgin Trains throughout the day (0600-2200). This coach service appears on the train timetable.

3.60 Cranfield Airport, nine miles from CMK, is the nearest landing strip to the city and is becoming increasingly popular with the business community using private planes. Public transport links are, however, poor. There are also three helipads in Milton Keynes: at , Pineham and near the at Furzeton Lake.

3.61 Regular direct train services are operated by Virgin Trains between Milton Keynes Central and Birmingham International Airport. This journey is approximately one hour.

3.62 Other major South East airports are more difficult to access via public transport. To travel from Milton Keynes to Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted by rail requires travellers to interchange in London, potentially involving a cross-London journey on the Underground. Alternatively, there are direct National Express services linking Milton Keynes Coachway to all of these airports.

Network Usage and Mode Share 3.63 The existing mode shares for Milton Keynes residents and those working (but not necessarily living) in Milton Keynes are illustrated in Table 3.3. This shows a very similar pattern between Milton Keynes residents and workers, although residents

48 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 have a lower car mode share for journeys to work than workers, partly because a higher proportion use the train and cycle.

Table 3.3 Mode Share From 2001 Census: Milton Keynes Residents and Workers

Mode MK Residents MK Workers

Car Driver 69% 73% Car Passenger 10% 9% Powered Two Wheeler 1% 1% Cycle 4% 3% Walk 6% 6% Train 3% 1% Bus 6% 6% Taxi 1% 1% Total 100% 100%

3.64 Table 3.4 compares the Milton Keynes residents’ mode share with the UK average. This shows a much higher share of the car for journeys to work in Milton Keynes than the national average.

Table 3.4 Mode of Journey to Work (2001): Milton Keynes Residents and UK Average

Mode Mode Share – Milton Keynes Mode Share - UK

Car 80% 70% Public Transport (Bus & Rail) 9% 15% Cycling 4% 3% Walking 6% 11% Powered Two Wheeler 1% 1% Total 100% 100%

3.65 We have also compared the Census outputs from 1991 and 2001. This sets the context in which LTP1 has been developed and also the key trends that LTP2 will need to address. During this period, there has been a 31 percent increase in the number of working residents in Milton Keynes due to the growth of the area. In terms of travel to work there has been a: • 282 percent increase in people working from home (6,833 people per day); • 34 percent increase in the use of private car for journeys to work (19,628); and • 16 percent reduction in public transport journeys to work (1,742). 3.66 One of the main challenges for LTP2 will be to manage and reverse the trend towards greater car use if we are not to suffer the consequences of future congestion. We will use the opportunities that land use planning, demand management, promotion of more sustainable alternatives to the car, and promotion

49 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 of higher car occupancy, will offer. Our ambition is to maintain the ‘containment’ ratio of Milton Keynes - the proportion of residents who also work in the area.

3.67 For Milton Keynes the self-containment ratio is very high; some 80 percent of the 108,076 working residents live and work in the city. As the city grows we will aim to maintain a high self-containment ratio so that commuting, especially by private car, is minimised and the adverse impact upon rural areas is lessened.

3.68 Although the numbers of journeys by walking and cycling have increased in absolute terms since 1991, their modal shares have decreased. The most disappointing trend in this period, however, has been in passenger transport. The absolute numbers as well as the modal share for bus and rail have declined.

3.69 However, over the life of our first LTP this trend has been reversed. Figure 3.1 illustrates the growth in bus patronage since 2000-01, which amounts to a 10 percent increase. The number of bus passengers, therefore, has increased over the life of LTP1, demonstrating that significant progress is being made. Figure 3.1 Growth in Bus Patronage

7,200

7,000

6,800

6,600

Patronage (000's) 6,400

6,200

6,000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

3.70 Traffic flow over a similar period (1999 to 2003) has increased by a smaller percentage (6 percent). However, from the data we currently have available, it is difficult to identify the relative impacts of growth in car traffic and changes in volumes of goods vehicles.

Freight and Distribution 3.71 The recently adopted Local Plan (December 2005) encourages development that involves the transfer of freight from road to rail or to the Grand Union Canal. The Plan reserves four sites for rail and canal transfer. Planning permission will be refused for development that would prejudice these schemes or lead to the loss of existing freight transfer facilities.

3.72 However, there is a very recent increase in concern expressed in some residential and employment areas over inappropriate lorry parking. This is an issue that we will address with partners during 2006. The Eastern Expansion Area Development Framework identifies a site north of the A509 adjoining the M1 as a suitable site for a future lorry park.

50 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 3.73 Goods vehicles are encouraged to use the primary distributors (as classed in the road hierarchy in the adopted Local Plan), which are all the ’A’ roads, by appropriate preferred route signing. Goods vehicles accessing locations in the rural areas should follow the advisory lorry route signing and conform to legal restrictions. These issues are constantly under review.

Transport Services in Rural Milton Keynes 3.74 Problems facing residents of rural areas within Milton Keynes accessing services benefit from four types of provision: demand-responsive bus services (DRT); rural bus services; the Countryside Traffic Management Strategy; and Community Rail.

Demand Responsive Bus Services 3.75 We operate the ‘ Harrier’, a demand responsive bus service for residents of the rural villages of Hanslope, and . The residents have to be members of the scheme.

3.76 The service supplements existing bus services as well as providing additional daytime and evening routes. It provides a bus service for passengers who do not have a bus service to places such as Stony Stratford, Newport Pagnell, Olney and Milton Keynes General Hospital. It also provides a service to Wolverton and Central Milton Keynes when other bus services are not available.

3.77 It provides a door-to-door pick-up if a resident lives more than 300 metres from the nearest bus stop. It also provides a door-to-door pick-up for residents affected by personal circumstances, for example those with a disability or the infirm, regardless of distance from a bus stop.

3.78 Following consultation with the Hanslope Harrier members, the local parish councils and MK Metro, the bus operator, we now offer a 50 percent fare reduction on all daytime trips for any member over 60 years of age. It has been extended to cover students 16 years and under during school holidays. The scheme, therefore, addresses the transport requirements of a number of groups, including people with disabilities, older people and younger people.

Rural Bus Services 3.79 There are a number of rural bus services provided in partnership with the neighbouring counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. They provide a link from rural areas to Central Milton Keynes as well as to neighbouring towns such as Northampton, Bedford and Leighton Buzzard. The major rural bus routes are: • Route 1 - Northampton, Cranfield, , Olney - CMK • Route 10 - Leighton Buzzard, Woburn Sands - CMK • Route 14/14A - Deanshanger - CMK - Newton Longville • Route 17 - Cranfield - CMK • Route 24 - Bletchley - CMK - Bedford • Route 33 - Northampton - CMK

51 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Countryside Traffic Management Strategy 3.80 The aim of the Countryside Traffic Management Strategy is to balance the need for acceptable local traffic conditions and accessibility for residents, business and visitors, with the need to reduce the impact of traffic on the distinctiveness and living qualities of the countryside.

3.81 Consequently, we have implemented the outcome of rural speed limit reviews, introduced traffic calming, piloted a Quiet Lane scheme in Filgrave and , and built new cycle links to Olney and Woburn Sands. These interventions have benefited the more vulnerable groups such as walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

3.82 However, we are also contributing to reducing the need to travel by promoting home working, tele-working centres, retaining village stores and other village facilities as well as providing a mobile library service for the rural villages.

Community rail 3.83 In partnership with Bedfordshire County Council, we hope to set up the Marston Vale Community Rail Partnership (MVCRP). The initial joint costs will be £100,000 per annum for three years but funding from other sources is sought.

3.84 The MVCRP is being set up (as are many others in the country) in accordance with the (then) Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA) Community Rail Development Strategy, published in November 200413. The strategy is designed to improve financial performance, value for money and the social value of local and rural railways so as to ensure their long-term future. Success is seen as being dependent upon active support from a wide range of local stakeholders, including local authorities and user and community groups.

MILTON KEYNES FUTURE PROFILE

3.85 The original vision for Milton Keynes City, approved by the Secretary of State in 1971 is planned for completion within the life of the next Local Transport Plan. However, there is now a longer term vision being put in place that goes beyond the original aspirations, and this will bring with it new transport challenges and opportunities that must be planned for now.

3.86 Milton Keynes and the South Midlands sub-region has been identified in regional planning guidance14 as one of four major growth areas in the South East of England. A sub-regional strategy was prepared to revise the three relevant Regional Spatial Strategies: East Midlands, East of England and South East. The Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy (March 2005) sets out strategic guidance on the scale, location and timing of development and infrastructure to 2021 and a longer-term perspective to 2031.

3.87 Milton Keynes is identified in the sub-regional strategy as a location which:

“will embrace its growth potential to mature as a major regional centre, particularly through the substantial development of its central area, supported by a significantly

13 The SRA has subsequently been replaced by the DfT's Rail Division. 14 Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, (RPG9), March 2001

52 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 enhanced public transport system to facilitate and support growth in major development areas.”

3.88 Housing growth to 2021 is planned to be an additional 46,833 dwellings with a further 23,700 planned provisionally for the period 2021 to 2031. This equates to almost a 90 percent increase in the number of dwellings in .

3.89 The housing growth will be through a combination of urban intensification and new sustainable urban expansion areas. Most development will be within the existing urban area of Milton Keynes in parallel with development of the central area, and selective urban intensification. However, 14,900 new dwellings up to 2016 will be provided through sustainable expansion areas to the west, north and east of the city. As well as residential developments, there will also be employment and leisure growth in these areas. These expansion areas are shown on Map 8.

3.90 The growth will continue beyond 2021 with Milton Keynes becoming a centre of major regional importance with a population in excess of 300,000. Major developments such as CBX 3 in CMK and the new football stadium at Denbigh North are already in under construction.

CBX 3 development area, Central Milton Keynes

INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORT NETWORKS

3.91 With growth comes the need to develop the necessary infrastructure to support this growth. One key component of this is a plan of improvements and additions to the existing transport networks. Table 3.5 sets out a comprehensive list of transport schemes that are identified in the Regional Transport Strategy and Sub-Regional Strategy to be undertaken to support developments in and around Milton Keynes in future years. The key schemes are summarised in the following paragraphs.

53 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 3.5 Milton Keynes Strategic Transport Investment Framework Based on the South East England Regional Transport Strategy RPG9 and Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy (MK&SM) Lead Likely start date of Scheme Status Mechanism Support role organisation construction

West Coast Mainline Upgrade * C DfT Rail DfT Rail NR 2001-2006

CMK Public Transport Access C LTP MKC MKP 2006-2011 Improvements **

A421 Milton Keynes to M1 J 13 S LTP MKC MKP/ BedsCC 2006-2011 */**

Bletchley Link 2 ** S LTP MKC MKP 2006-2011

East West Rail Phase 1 inc. DfT RAIL UC DfT Rail EWRC/NR 2006-2011 Aylesbury Spur * /LAs/ODPM

East West Rail Station at Newton DfT RAIL UC DfT Rail EWRC/NR 2006-2016 Longville ** /LAs/ODPM

Milton Keynes Rapid Transit – UC LTP MKC/MKP - 2011-2016 Stage 3 *

M1 Junction 14 Improvements MMS-UC TPI HA - 2011-2016 */**

A421 Buckingham to Milton UC LTP BucksCC MKC/MKP To be determined Keynes Upgrade *

KEY C = Schemes that are included in either the Highways Agency's Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI), fully or provisionally approved in the Local Transport Plan process (LTP) or identified in the Strategic Plan for the Railways (DfT). S = Schemes that have been submitted for funding through the Local Transport Plan process (LTP). UC = The subject of study or early scheme preparation work by delivery agencies, local authority or funding organisations. The timelines are indicative. MMS-UC = The subject of study by the Highways Agency and originated from the London to South Midlands Multi Modal Model Study. The timelines are indicative. NOTE Does not include any schemes that were classed as being for 'for future consideration or investigation'.

TPI = Targeted Programme of Improvements MKC = MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL HA = Highways Agency MKP = MILTON KEYNES PARTNERSHIP DfT = Department for Transport Beds CC = BEDFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL NR = Network Rail Bucks CC = BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL LTP = Local Transport Plan Major Scheme EWRC = EAST WEST RAIL CONSORTIUM LA = Local Authority * = RPG9 ** = MK&SM

Rail 3.92 There has been concern over the consequential effects of the West Coast Main Line upgrade project when fewer Inter-City services were provided for Milton Keynes London-bound commuters after completion of the project. A £24 million Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) Bid that was submitted in 2005 has been given approval and forms a core component of the total cost of the £115 million scheme.

3.93 The project would in effect rebuild the track and signalling layout at Milton Keynes Central rail station, creating considerable operating flexibility, permitting more trains to stop, without delaying other following services, more trains to reverse and more stopping trains on the Milton Keynes-Watford Junction-Euston corridor. A sixth platform would be created on the western () side and Platform 1 would

54 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 become a through, not a terminating platform. A new ticket hall at Wolverton is included in the project. A new bay platform will enable a link to Bletchley and therefore a direct link to Bedford will be established.

3.94 The DfT and the Council led the full scheme appraisal, with other local authorities in support, as well as MKP and operator Silverlink. The CIF element will be completed by March 2008.

3.95 East West Rail potentially provides a strategic rail route along the east west axis from Bedford to Oxford along a corridor currently poorly served by road or rail. The East West Rail study (funded by the ODPM) has evaluated land use / transportation options along the corridor (Oxford – Bedford and Aylesbury to Milton Keynes). In addition, the provision of the extension of the Chiltern Line from Aylesbury north to a new parkway station at Berryfields is being investigated, as this would form a part of the East West Rail route.

Strategic Road Links 3.96 A new route for the A4146 to the south of Milton Keynes is currently being constructed as a dual carriageway from the A505 Linslade Southern Bypass to the Fenny Stratford Bypass, and A5. The new road bypasses local communities such as Soulbury and Stoke Hammond as well as Leighton Buzzard – Linslade. It provides a strategic link to Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire.

3.97 The London to South Midlands Multi Modal Study (LSMMMS) reported in February 2003. The study recommended improvements to the M1 corridor south of Milton Keynes, and improvements to the A421. Upgrades to the A421 east of M1 Junction 13 were to be included in the Highways Agency’s Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI), as this section is a trunk road. West of Junction 13 to Milton Keynes, the recommendation was that the local highway authority takes the scheme forward through the LTP major scheme process. The Secretary of State subsequently agreed the recommendations.

3.98 Upgrading of the M1 from the M25 to Junction 13 is in the Highways Agency’s TPI for completion by 2011. This includes widening to four lanes and junction improvements. Junction 14 is not affected (as part of HA programme).

3.99 To the east of the M1, the Highways Agency is taking forward the dualling of the M1 Junction 13 to Bedford section of the A421 (as a TPI project). This is also intended for completion by 2011.

3.100 Bedfordshire County Council, MKP and the Council are jointly managing the A421 Dualling from M1 Junction 13 to Kingston study in line with the LSMMMS recommendation. Recent public consultation in the and areas presented two alternatives: • A new road alignment from Junction 13 to the H10, Bletcham Way, grid road; and • Dualling of the existing alignment, with additional junctions serving the Eastern Expansion Area to the north. 3.101 Initial appraisal work already undertaken has ruled out inclusion of a new Junction 13A, between Junctions 13 and 14. A major scheme business case has been

55 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 submitted to DfT. It is our first priority for a major scheme in LTP2. The intended opening date for the reconfigured A421 is 2011.

3.102 To the west of Milton Keynes, the upgrading of the A421 towards the M40 is an aspiration in the regional plan. It has yet to be programmed.

3.103 The M1 Junction 14 Gateway Improvements scheme, designed to improve public transport operation and relieve existing congestion, allowing for accelerated development was submitted as a Community Infrastructure Fund bid in July 2005. The scheme was approved in February 2006.

3.104 The A5 Traffic Studies project is to investigate and recommend interim capacity improvements to A5 junctions within Milton Keynes, and to assess the overall strategic impacts on the A5 within Milton Keynes. This project will address the Highways Agency’s concerns about the impacts of both the Western Expansion Area and CMK growth plans on the two junctions at Portway and and work is commencing on interim solutions. Further work will identify solutions for the other A5 junctions at and Fenny Stratford.

3.105 Further studies and actions will be needed to set out improvements to the local road network required as a result of changes in land use.

Local Junction Improvements 3.106 Currently the grid road network is operating reasonably well, although there is localised peak hour congestion. However, this situation is forecast to change substantially with the significant growth planned for Milton Keynes over the next 25 years. By 2011 there is forecast to be 28 percent more traffic than in 2001 even with public transport usage increasing significantly. Sections 4 and 5 describe this process in more detail.

3.107 MKP and the Council undertake transport modelling using a multi-modal model. Recently, work has been focused on predicting highway requirements to 2011 and then to 2016. Results from the modelling indicate that the grid road network does not have sufficient capacity to contain the growth in traffic forecast. Using the test of one hour of congestion occurring during the morning peak, approximately 50 existing junctions will need some form of capacity enhancement by 2016. Approximately 30 of these will need capacity enhancement work by 2011. An initial five-year, phased implementation plan has been identified (jointly by MKP and the Council). The capacity improvements have been prioritised to the public transport routes to ensure that the buses enjoy enhanced priority, improving journey times and reliability.

Air Transport 3.108 There are no specific projects relating to Milton Keynes. Access to London Luton Airport will be assisted by the M1 upgrade proposals, and to Birmingham International Airport by the Milton Keynes Central rail station improvements.

Existing Major Schemes 3.109 The Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Improvements project is being funded by the ODPM and DfT and is due for completion in 2008. This project is being delivered as a joint MKC/EP project. It will deliver a bus priority route through CMK,

56 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 improved interchange facilities and Real Time Passenger Information. The main construction started in early 2006.

3.110 The Bletchley Link scheme was provisionally approved in LTP1. However an alternative scheme has been developed which enjoys far greater local support and offers better value for money. This was submitted as a major scheme business case report in July 2005. The revised scheme (costing approximately £10 million) features bus lanes, Redway improvements, rebuilt at-grade road junctions and a relocated bus station and will make a substantial contribution to our strategy. The Bletchley Development Board supports the revised scheme, as well as the residents, local bus operators, English Partnerships and Network Rail.

Public Transport Vision 3.111 The sub-regional strategy emphasises the importance of the development of new public transport related to the new urban extensions and linked with high quality public transport serving the north/south corridor. East-west road corridors are also identified as needing improvement. The sub-regional strategy describes this as “rapid transit” but it is being taken forward as bus-based public transport.

3.112 MKP and the Council have developed a long term vision that sustainable transport should have a central role in the accessibility of Milton Keynes.

3.113 The vision suggests that, Milton Keynes should establish eight core bus services, which would act as the focus for public transport movements, each linking with CMK. The routes will be more frequent and a higher quality. They would be supplemented by other services to meet other demands but generally to meet areas of lower demand.

3.114 It is considered essential that a ‘whole route’ concept is adopted which includes consideration of the whole bus experience including not only routes, timetables and vehicles but access to stops, information and supporting measures to engender cultural change in the city’s population. The number of bus users in the city is small compared with other cities of a similar size and if the desired increase in use is to be realized, then an entirely fresh approach must be adopted to offer an attractive alternative to car use.

3.115 In addition, we will take every opportunity, particularly with respect to new development areas, to ensure that public transport routes are developed to establish the core network, regardless of whether or not they form part of the two proposed East-West and North-South upgraded routes identified in the study.

3.116 The change of emphasis towards more sustainable transport planning is evidenced by the design for transport access in the expansion areas. The main transportation access to the area will involve the construction of ‘City Streets’. They will comprise a segregated public transport corridor, a vehicular route, together with a cycleway and pedestrian route. The transition from a grid road to a ‘City Street’ will generally take place at a signalised junction, or a roundabout, and will be ‘signposted’ through good design and appropriate urban form.

3.117 Public transport services will run along the ‘City Streets’ enabling high quality links to key nodes including CMK, District Centres and the older towns. They will also link the main facilities such as the ‘High Street’ and the primary and secondary schools.

57 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 It is envisaged that the services would run at least at a 15 minute frequency. Provision will be made in advance of each phase of development to establish public transport ‘habits’ at an early stage. Bus stops will be no more than 400 metres from the vast majority of houses with around 75 percent of dwellings within 350m.

3.118 Some of the key recommendations from the long term vision approved by the Council include: • Extensive bus priority and traffic management measures to be introduced at all junctions, pinch points and accesses approaching CMK. • A real time bus information system. • Busways constructed on the east-west and a north-south axes. • The planning authorities ensuring that strict guidelines are in place with respect to structure, configuration and densities of developments. 3.119 The Public Transport Vision is being taken forward in the following way: • The Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Improvements Project, which has provisional acceptance for funding; • The Milton Keynes Bus Rapid Transit comprises the Milton Keynes Public Transport Infrastructure Improvements and the further development of the public transport diameter route infrastructure. For the former, a Growth Areas Fund (GAF) bid has been successful and will deliver high quality and reliable public transport priority route from the eastern and western expansion areas to Central Milton Keynes in partnership with MKP. Additionally the bid promotes public transport improvements at the hospital and the station, complementing other successful SCF bids. • Bletchley Scheme - this will provide bus priority and new interchange facilities at the southern end of the north-south axes. 3.120 In view of the planned increase in population and the limited options for providing more road space we believe that improving public transport offers the best opportunity and value for money in moving people, especially into CMK. Enhancing public transport will also help us to meet our sustainability objectives as well as improving accessibility for those without easy access to a car to a wide range of services provided in the city centre, meeting the Council’s corporate priority to improve public transport.

CONTEXT OVERVIEW

3.121 The overall context for the growth of Milton Keynes is illustrated in Maps 8 and 9. It is in this context that the LTP has been developed - it is just one part of a much wider picture and it needs to complement (and where appropriate augment) the longer-term vision for Milton Keynes.

3.122 We live in a difficult planning environment. There are many challenges and opportunities that could affect our LTP2. These are considered in the next section.

58 Section 3 – Local Context Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

INTRODUCTION

4.1 The following sections describe the most significant transport-related problems and issues affecting Milton Keynes today. Potential future issues are also explored, as these are the areas where the Council and other partners have an opportunity to address through the local transport planning process.

4.2 Results from public consultation on LTP2 and the shared priorities revealed the following preferences, ranked in order of importance: • Improving accessibility and public transport particularly for those in need, • Improving road safety, • Reducing congestion, and • Improving air quality. 4.3 To provide continuity, the identified challenges and opportunities are set out below according to each of the transport shared priorities identified by the Government.

4.4 It is essential that people have good access to the facilities that they need or want to use, including workplaces, schools, colleges and other training centres, hospitals and primary health care services, food shops and leisure activities. Accessibility is inherently linked to the quality of transport services and transport infrastructure, but of equal importance is how conveniently the services are located.

4.5 Because of its present level of car-dependency and land-use patterns, a significant proportion of Milton Keynes citizens, particularly in wards of high deprivation, who do not have access to a car are disadvantaged, both socially and economically.

4.6 In the last 25 years, the population in the Borough has risen from 124,300 in 1981 to 216,850 (2004 estimate) and by 2031 the population is predicted to reach 339,710. Milton Keynes has been identified as one of four major growth areas in the South East of England and new development will create an additional 71,000 dwellings by 2031. It is important that accessibility is an integral part of the planning process so that people in the new development areas, particularly those from disadvantaged groups, have good access to the job opportunities and essential services that they need.

4.7 Our analysis of accessibility in Milton Keynes shows that it is generally good. However, some areas suffer from social deprivation and one of the challenges of accessibility planning is to identify the links between deprivation and accessibility and to initiate change through improvements in the provision of transport and services.

4.8 The growth in development and the changing demographics of Milton Keynes are likely to place an increased importance on the need to periodically review this Accessibility Strategy and to monitor how accessibility changes over time.

59 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 THE FOCUS ON ACCESSIBILITY

4.9 In the last few years there has been an increased focus on accessibility planning, as a result of new Government policy and recent publications by Government and non-Government organisations. Accessibility Planning concentrates on promoting social inclusion by tackling accessibility problems for those in disadvantaged groups or areas. Improving accessibility is one of the core targets of this LTP.

4.10 Better accessibility means that people have greater opportunities for: • Employment; • Maintaining a healthier lifestyle and receiving a better diet; • Receiving a good education and training; • Getting good healthcare; and • Taking part in social and leisure activities. 4.11 In general, improvements in accessibility can be achieved by providing more or better public transport services, a better walking and cycling infrastructure and/or by locating services in more convenient places (and therefore reducing the need to travel). In practice, accessibility planning is not this simple, as many other factors have to be taken into consideration, such as the quality of service provision and whether people have been given sufficient information about their transport choices. To improve accessibility, attitudinal issues must be overcome and the improvements that are put in place must be sustainable.

4.12 In our Strategy, we have chosen to concentrate on accessibility to the four main services, which are health, education, employment and food shops.

ACCESS TO THE KEY SERVICES

Health 4.13 Nationally many smaller hospitals have been closed and their services relocated to new larger hospitals, which, due to the required land-take, often have to be sited in less than ideal locations in terms of accessibility. As such, access to hospital services can involve lengthy and costly trips, especially from rural areas. If accessibility to hospitals is poor, then more appointments are missed and delays occur in discharging patients. This results in substantial costs for the community.

Education 4.14 Difficulties with transport or the provision of learning facilities can mean that people do not receive quality learning, cannot study their chosen subject or are dissuaded from learning altogether. This is not just applicable to primary and secondary schools but also to pre-school services, further education and skills training. It is important to ensure that schools, colleges and further education courses are conveniently located, but it is also important that courses are run at convenient times and that the type of courses offered meet the needs of the local population.

4.15 The current rules of entitlement mean that pupils only receive free school transport if they live beyond two miles from primary schools or beyond three miles from secondary schools, and this only applies if they attend their nearest suitable school.

60 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Therefore, parents in low-income groups may be restricted in their choice of schools because of financial considerations.

Employment 4.16 Poor transport affects the extent to which people can look for work, limits the type of work that they can apply for and reduces the likelihood that they will retain their jobs. Travel costs can be prohibitive, especially for those seeking work and those who have just left school. This may mean that their opportunities are limited and that people are inclined to accept lower paid jobs that are closer to home and that are less likely to be in their chosen occupation.

4.17 The unemployment rate in Milton Keynes is relatively low at 1.9 percent (June 2005), but higher than the average of 1.5 percent for the South East. Milton Keynes is one of the fastest growing cities in the country and the number of job opportunities is forecast to increase significantly over the next 25 years, as the plans for development are delivered.

4.18 For journeys to work in Milton Keynes, car is by far the most popular mode, making up 80 percent of all journeys, which is 10 percent higher than the national average. Table 4.1 shows the mode share for journeys to work.

Table 4.1 Mode Share for Journeys to Work (Census 2001)

Mode Mode Share – Milton Keynes Mode Share - UK

Car 80% 70% Public Transport (Bus and Rail) 9% 15% Cycling 4% 3% Walking 6% 11% Powered Two Wheeler 1% 1% Total 100% 100%

4.19 Accessibility to work can also be improved by providing more employment opportunities, increasing flexibility in working hours, working from home and bringing jobs closer to those who need them.

4.20 Some of the major employers that are based in Milton Keynes include the Council, the Abbey, Argos, BP, Daimler Chrysler, The Merchants Group, Cable and Wireless, The Volkswagen Group, and The .

Food Shops 4.21 Where there is a lack of locally available and affordable healthy food, people need to travel further and at greater expense to achieve a well balanced diet. These problems may be more acute in rural areas and this is one of the factors that cause a reliance on the car.

4.22 Those on low incomes, with no access to a car or those that have mobility problems often have fewer choices as to where they can go food shopping. When these at- risk groups live in neighbourhoods with relatively high levels of deprivation, there is a vicious circle because most commonly these are not commercially attractive locations within which to locate new stores.

61 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4.23 A common trend across the country has been the decline of independent food shops and the increase in the number of superstores, which are often located on the outskirts of towns. However, in certain areas this trend has recently started to reverse through the introduction of smaller outlets by the larger chains.

RELEVANT STRATEGIES

4.24 Our Accessibility Strategy is also driven by our overarching vision for transport from our Sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy (SITS). This is:

“We aim to open up Milton Keynes by making it a place where everyone can afford to move around conveniently, where economic, social and cultural life can flourish, whilst damage to our environment is minimised.”

4.25 It will therefore be driven by the vision in both the Community Strategy and the SITS. From this the objective for our Accessibility Strategy in order to deliver the vision is: “To enhance the quality of life for people by improving the access to jobs, education, shops and healthcare services.” DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACCESSIBILITY STRATEGY

4.26 The Accessibility Strategy builds upon the accessibility work that was undertaken for the Provisional LTP submission (July 2005). It has been structured in line with the DfT’s recommended process for accessibility planning, which is shown in Figure 4.1. Our Accessibility Strategy, including a description of the methodology applied, is enclosed as Annex A to this LTP.

Figure 4.1 The Accessibility Planning Process

62 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4.27 This strategy aims to address the problems that have been identified at the local level. An improved analytical and evidence base has been developed through the further use of mapping and geo-demographic data, by drawing upon the experience of partners, through further consultation and through recognition of the findings of related studies in Milton Keynes.

4.28 With a sound understanding of the accessibility issues and problems in the Borough, we have been able to consider the options and to define the priorities for improvement, and to set appropriate and measurable targets against defined indicators. The accessibility needs and problems have been identified for specific geographical areas and social groups using the following sources of information: • Consultation and Partnerships; • Strategic Accessibility Assessment; and • Local Accessibility Assessment.

STRATEGIC AND LOCAL ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENTS

4.29 This exercise was started during the first half of 2005 using the DfT’s recommended accessibility software, ‘Accession’. Maps summarising the access to each of the four main service areas can be found in the Accessibility Strategy (see Appendix A in Annex A).

Accessibility to Education 4.30 Our analysis shows that close to 100 percent of pupils within the Borough can access their nearest school by public transport within the upper threshold limit, which is 30 minutes for primary schools, 40 minutes for secondary schools and 60 minutes for further educational establishments.

4.31 Almost all primary school pupils and 16-19 year olds can reach their nearest school or college using public transport within 15 minutes and 30 minutes respectively. Approximately 90 percent of secondary school pupils can get to school within 20 minutes by public transport. Accessibility for the education ‘at-risk’ group (identified as those receiving free school meals) is very similar to that for all pupils.

4.32 It should be noted that in reality accessibility to school is likely to be even better than shown due to the fact that dedicated school bus services were not included in the modelling.

4.33 Because of the compact nature of Milton Keynes the accessibility for pupils who cycle is close to 100 percent. For travel to all of the key destinations, it is likely bus travel, rather than rail or a combination of rail and bus, provides the shortest journey times.

Accessibility to Health 4.34 In general, there is good accessibility to hospitals and GPs for the residents of Milton Keynes, as 90 percent of households can get to their nearest GP within 15 minutes by public transport and almost 100 percent can access their nearest hospital within 60 minutes by public transport.

63 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

4.35 Out of all of the indicators (including health, education, work and shopping), the lowest level of accessibility for the lower threshold is for access to hospitals. Just over 70 percent of households can get to their nearest hospital within 30 minutes by public transport.

4.36 There are five hospitals (that have outpatients facilities) within 20 kilometres of Milton Keynes, and these are: • Northampton General Hospital; • Bedford Hospital; • Luton and Dunstable Hospital; • Stoke Mandeville Hospital; and • Milton Keynes General Hospital. 4.37 Analysis of the journey time results shows that the closest hospital for approximately 95 percent of residents is Milton Keynes General.

4.38 In order to better define how accessible the hospitals in and around Milton Keynes are, we undertook more detailed accessibility modelling. To take account of shift patterns and visiting hours the calculations were completed for off-peak travel between 2-4pm and 6-8pm.

4.39 We also calculated accessibility to hospitals for the social groups which may have difficulty travelling to hospitals because of mobility issues or because they do not have access to a car, or because they are likely to have a greater need to make trips to hospitals. These groups are defined as: • People that do not have access to a car; • 16-24 year olds; • People with a Long Term Limiting Illness (LTLI); • People aged 65 and above. 4.40 Our modelling shows that there is very little difference in the number of people that can access hospitals within 40 minutes and within 60 minutes. However, there is a dramatic drop in accessibility below 40 minutes, and there is a 26 percent difference in the number of households that can access their nearest hospital within 30 minutes and 40 minutes.

4.41 Accessibility is slightly worse for those aged 65 and over. Milton Keynes General is the nearest hospital for nearly 95 percent of Milton Keynes residents. The accessibility to hospitals between 6-8pm is marginally better than between 2-4pm.

4.42 While there are many pockets within the urban area of Milton Keynes that have no accessibility, these are generally in areas where there is currently no residential development.

Accessibility to Work 4.43 The accessibility modelling has demonstrated that 93.5 percent of working age people in Milton Keynes can access their nearest centre of employment within 20

64 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 minutes by public transport. Accessibility is even better for those receiving Job Seekers Allowance.

4.44 A similar proportion of people can cycle to work within 20 minutes or 40 minutes as those that use public transport. It should be noted that the modelling assumes that people work at their nearest employment centre which in reality may not be true. When compared to schools and GPs, people are prepared to travel further to reach their employment destination.

Accessibility to Food Shops 4.45 In Milton Keynes almost 100 percent of households can travel to their nearest food shop within 15 minutes by public transport or by cycle. The small numbers of people that must travel further to shop for food are located in the more rural areas of Milton Keynes.

PRIORITIES FOR THE LOCAL ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

4.46 The focus of our Accessibility Strategy was also influenced by the Social Inclusion and Health Inequalities (SIHI) report: ‘Creating solutions in places of multiple disadvantage: an area based approach to regeneration and social inclusion’. The study was completed through contributions from a wide range of stakeholders. The report set out the reasons for adopting a locality-based approach targeted towards the most disadvantaged communities in Milton Keynes. The reasons are: • To better support and help those people currently in most need; and • To transform the most disadvantaged places in Milton Keynes so that nobody is disadvantaged by where they live. 4.47 The report also stated: “to be successful this will require a broad range of sustained, co-ordinated interventions that address relevant social, economic and physical/environmental issues”.

4.48 The report recommended that programmes of regeneration and social inclusion intervention should be locality based and focus on Beanhill and Coffee Hall. Cabinet approved this approach on 21st June 2005.

4.49 Based on the accessibility modelling work, as well as the locality based social inclusion work, we identified access to the hospital by public transport and access needs for the residents of Beanhill and Coffee Hall as the priority for the full Accessibility Strategy.

IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEMS - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES

4.50 The initial phase of the SIHI work is concentrating on “integrated community engagement and consultation in order to develop a robust and best-fit programme for service provision for identified local communities”. Improvements in accessibility can help to promote social inclusion in the disadvantaged areas.

4.51 The estates that are most in need of interventions were identified using the Indices of Multiple Deprivation contained in the ‘Milton Keynes Social Atlas’ together with an analysis of ‘Trends over time’, which indicates how the rankings of estates (in terms of deprivation) have changed over recent years.

65 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4.52 The criteria used to form the indices include the following: • Percentage of long-term limiting illness; • Percentage of hospital admissions; • Percentage of car ownership; • Percentage of adults without a qualification; and • Percentage of violent crime. 4.53 From further analysis of the indicators contained in the Social Atlas, we subsequently identified Netherfield as the third priority area. Beanhill, Netherfield and Coffee Hall are ranked 1 to 3 as having the most difficulties in terms of social exclusion. All three estates are contained within the Woughton Ward, which is within the ten percent most deprived wards in England.

4.54 Beanhill has a population of 1,910. It is ranked third out of the 103 estates in Milton Keynes for the number of hospital admissions and third for the number of pupils claiming free school meals. It has high levels of unemployment and levels of educational attainment are low.

4.55 Coffee Hall has one of the highest rates for emergency hospital admissions and is ranked twenty-third for the number of violent crimes committed. Netherfield has the highest proportion of pupils receiving free school meals in Milton Keynes. The population of Coffee Hall is 2,020 and for Netherfield 2,750.

4.56 Figure 3.4 of the Accessibility Strategy (see Annex A) shows the hospitals, GPs, schools and food shops that are located close to the three estates. It is evident that all three estates are well situated in terms of proximity to the key services. Primary schools are located in each of the estates and all estates are within 1 kilometre of their nearest supermarket.

4.57 There are two secondary schools just outside Beanhill and both of these have sixth- form colleges. The Milton Keynes General Hospital is located very close to the estates.

4.58 Bus routes that have services running on at least 5 days per week travel through Coffee Hall and along the edge of all three estates. There are bus stops along Grafton Street, adjacent to Beanhill, but buses do not presently serve them. The Redway cycle network runs through the three estates and the Sustrans National Route 51 runs along the northern edge of Coffee Hall.

4.59 The number of people using a vehicle to travel to work in these three estates is less than average, which is partly attributable to the low levels of car ownership as identified in Figure 4.2 below.

4.60 Our accessibility analysis shows that the Woughton ward ranks as the fifth best in terms of accessibility and has the worst overall accessibility.

66 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Figure 4.2 Proportion of Households Without Access to a Car

4.61 All three estates have a level of professional occupation that is below average. Unemployment is higher than average in all three estates, fewer people are employed full-time and a higher than average number of people are categorised as being permanently sick or disabled.

4.62 Although Woughton has a high accessibility ranking, from information contained in the Community Strategy and the ‘Creating Solutions…’ report, it is evident that factors such as severance, security and the general provision of services within the local area contribute to the poor record for health, education and employment standards and opportunities within Beanhill, Coffee Hall and Netherfield.

SAFER ROADS

4.63 We put a high priority on reducing all road traffic casualties including fatalities, serious and slight injuries. A Road Safety Strategy was approved in January 2004. In 2004, there were 92 people killed or seriously injured on the roads in Milton Keynes, of which 8 were children. This level is unacceptable.

4.64 The Government’s headline target is a 40 percent reduction in the total number of killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties, although we have set a tougher target based on a 50 percent reduction and are making good progress towards achieving this in partnership with the police.

4.65 We will tackle this, with particular focus upon three key road user groups: • Children; • Vulnerable road users - pedestrians and cyclists; and • Powered two-wheelers.

67 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4.66 The Road Safety Strategy (see Appendix 5) includes measures to tackle speeding vehicles, safer and better engineered infrastructure, more enforcement and the active promotion of safer driving. The Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership will take this forward.

4.67 Progress has already been made towards reducing the overall number of casualties on roads in Milton Keynes during the course of the first Local Transport Plan. In 2004, there were 26 less child casualties than in 2003 (see Figure 4.3).

4.68 The Council, approved the ‘Milton Keynes Children and Young People’s Plan 2006- 2009’ in March 2006. We have called it ‘Every Child and Young Person in Milton Keynes Matters’. Prevention and participation are key themes. One of the priorities for action in the plan is to reduce the number of children killed or injured in road casualties. This will be assisted by encouraging young people to influence transport strategy and plans through the ‘Children and Young People’s Joint Planning Group’.

Figure 4.3 Child Casualties on Milton Keynes Roads

94 - 98 Average 2002 2003 2004 90 78 80

70 61 60

50 41 40 41 40 35 32 30 28 29 30 25 No of casualties 19 20

7 10 3 4 334 4 2

0 ChildPeds ChildCyclists Child Passengers Child Passengers Other (Cars) (bus, coach & minibus) Casualty type

4.69 Growth provides an opportunity to design new developments to reduce the number of overall casualties.

4.70 The national speed limits of the dual carriageway road network in Milton Keynes encourages faster traffic and is not conducive to vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. At present many bus stops are located on grid roads, and accessing them on foot is not a ‘pleasurable experience’.

4.71 Within grid squares, there are many examples of traffic calming measures to reduce speeds and collisions. However, there are opportunities for increased effectiveness, especially at junctions with the grid road network where drivers have to adjust to changes in speed limits from 60 or 70 mph to 20 or 30 mph.

68 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4.72 The off-road traffic-free cycle and pedestrian network (Redways) offers many opportunities to promote sustainable and healthy transport modes. However, these are under utilised due to the perception of personal safety in the many underpasses, overgrown vegetation and secluded routes. Walking and cycling for all or part of everyday journeys to work, school and local services is, in many ways the easiest way for many people to keep active and stay healthy. Making the Redways a more attractive alternative, and putting in place measures to minimise the risk of collisions at junctions with the highway network, are of paramount importance in encouraging greater use.

4.73 While serious casualties for both pedestrians and cyclists have fallen there seems to have been a small increase in those receiving slight injuries (see Figures 4.4 and 4.5).

Figure 4.4 Pedestrian Casualties on Milton Keynes Roads

slight serious fatal 80 74 66 70 60 62 60

50

40

30 14 20 16 17 No of casualties 12 10 3 2 3 1 0 94-98 2002 2003 2004 Year

Figure 4.5 Cyclist Casualties on Milton Keynes Roads

slight serious fatal

90 82 80

70

60 54 50 50 40 40

30 No of casualties 20 7 9 6 5 10 1 000 0 94-98 2002 2003 2004 Year

69 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4.74 That most vulnerable group of road users, those using powered two-wheelers (motor cycles and mopeds) also appear to be experiencing fewer injuries (see Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.6 Injuries to Powered Two Wheelers

slight serious fatal 80 69 68 70 62 62 60

50

40 23 30 23 21 18 No of casualties 20

10 5 2 3 1 0 94-98 2002 2003 2004

Year

4.75 There is strong evidence to suggest that nationally people from poorer communities are more likely to be involved in road collisions than those living in more affluent areas. In view of this we consider disadvantaged communities within the annual casualty analysis process.

4.76 Our analysis of casualties occurring in disadvantaged communities in Milton Keynes has not highlighted this as being a specific problem. However, we now include disadvantaged communities within the criteria for identifying appropriate safer routes to schools projects. Our road safety education, training and publicity (ETP) programme has been targeted at areas of deprivation within Milton Keynes. TACKLING CONGESTION

4.77 It is commonly recognised that Milton Keynes city has been developed to meet the needs of the car user. There is little doubt that it has been successful in this regard, as we have seen from the relatively high car ownership levels and percentage modal share for private vehicles. Indeed, traffic levels on the road network have consistently risen.

4.78 The dominance of the private car in Milton Keynes is primarily the result of the following factors: • The network of relatively high capacity grid roads makes travelling by private car very attractive. This means that road users have several alternative routes to reach any destination. • Conversely, the grid system makes journeys by public transport unattractive, as bus stops on the grid roads are some distance from residential areas and ultimate destinations. In addition, meandering routes through grids adds to journey times. Partly as a consequence, the current bus network is poor; its route structure is complex and service frequencies low.

70 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Parking is cheap (in many cases, free), plentiful and integrated into all existing developments. • The low density dispersed nature of Milton Keynes means that walking and cycling distances are considerably longer, making these modes generally less attractive than in more compact towns. • The segregation of walk and cycleways is an advantage in safety terms but a disadvantage in terms of perceived security, and the perception of such security issues impacts on the attractiveness of these modes. These factors conspire to produce the heavy dominance of the private car in Milton Keynes that is very much a feature of the area today. Despite this dominance, currently only localised congestion is experienced on the roads leading to and within Central Milton Keynes, in peak periods, on weekdays. There are also some significant problems associated with Junctions 13 and 14 of the M1, spilling over onto the grid network and the A421 during peak hours. 4.79 However, the significant growth in housing and employment combined with the development of Milton Keynes as a regional centre will significantly increase the volume of traffic on Milton Keynes’ grid road network over the next 25 years. The Milton Keynes Traffic Model has been used to forecast the potential impact that this growth would have on traffic congestion assuming a continuation of existing trends in car usage and modal share.

4.80 To assess the impact of this growth on the transport network, the Council, together with Milton Keynes Partnership has developed the Milton Keynes Multi Modal Transport Model that is used to forecast transport demand. A key feature of the model is that it first predicts the total travel demand then predicts modal shift to public transport that will occur as a result of the range of investments proposed for the bus infrastructure and services. The remaining traffic is then modelled to indicate capacity issues and congestion points on the network. Therefore the model does not simply predict and provide for more car use - a significant increase in bus patronage is a fundamental element of the transport strategy for growth.

4.81 Key features of the model are that: • It covers the whole urban area of Milton Keynes; • It meets the standards set down by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volume 12); • It has been fully validated; and • It has a base year of 2001 (forecast years of 2011, 2016 and 2031). 4.82 Included in the forecast years (2011, and 2016) is the planned development identified in the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan (up to 2011), and the sub- regional strategy (up to 2016). The model also has the capability of testing both network responses (for example new roads or bus priority) and policy responses (for example park and ride).

4.83 Initially the model was run to predict conditions in 2011 if no improvements were carried out to the network. This is called the ‘do minimum’ scenario and has been run to identify where pressures on the network will occur given the planned growth and associated travel demands.

71 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4.84 Figures 4.8 and 4.9 below illustrate what that means in terms of traffic delay during the morning peak hour. Figure 4.9 shows quite clearly the pressure growth will put on the network. This would result in: • Significant delays on the approaches to Milton Keynes from both M1 junctions; • Increasing congestion from the A5 junctions; • Delays and congestion around CMK; and • Capacity issues leading to delays at around 50 roundabouts on the network.

Figure 4.8 Traffic Delay in the Morning Peak in 2001

M1 J14

CMK

M1 J13

A5 A 421

72 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Figure 4.9 Traffic Delay in the Morning Peak in 2011 if No Action Taken (Do-Minimum)

4.85 Looked at in a different way, Figure 4.10 illustrates the impact on our networks in terms of: • Travel delay; • Travel distance; • Average speed of travel; and • Fuel consumption Figure 4.10 Milton Keynes Network Performance 2001 2011 'do minimum' 1.8

1.6

1.4 1.2

1

Index 0.8

0.6

0.4 0.2

0 Travel Time Distance Speed Fuel trips Indicator

73 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4.86 The impacts are that total travel time increases by 67 percent, and distance travelled by 58 percent. Congestion and delay means that average speeds are reduced by 6 percent, but this also means that estimated fuel consumption rises by 65 percent. These are disproportionate rises given that they arise due to a 21 percent increase in trips.

4.87 Looking at this in more detail, an assessment of travel times was looked at on key radial routes and cross-city routes. These are shown in Figure 4.11 below.

Figure 4.11 Comparative Journey Times Along Key Routes

2001 2011 'do minimum' 20

18

16

14

12

10

8 Time (minutes)

6

4

2

0 123456789 Routes (see key for definition)

Key to routes

1 Blue H5 – J14 to CMK 2 Light Blue to CMK 3 Pink Bletchley to CMK 4 Red H6 – J14 to CMK 5 Green A422 Newport to A5 6 Orange A421 H8 - M1 (J13) 7 Orange M1 (J13) - H8 - A421 8 Purple WEA to CMK 9 Yellow A5 to CMK

4.88 The level of development that is planned for Milton is the principle cause of this forecast impact on the network but at the same time it provides opportunities to address the problem by providing funding opportunities. These sources include:

74 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Sustainable Communities Fund. • Growth Area Fund. • MK Tariff from development. • Local Transport Plan. • Transport Innovation Fund. • The Community Infrastructure Fund. • Developer contributions (S.106)15. 4.89 These funding streams will enable a series of improvements to be implemented on the grid road network. On the basis of the work highlighted above a number of junctions have been identified as being bottlenecks on the network.

4.90 Our land use policies, as developed in the Milton Keynes Local Plan, seek to promote the development of sustainable communities contained within urban extensions that are designed to facilitate transport patterns and behaviour promoted by PPG13 (Transport). That is to reduce the number, length, and need to make journeys, especially by the private vehicle. To achieve this, the main urban extensions are designed around providing development focussed on public transport corridors. The development is designed at higher densities, with ease of access to public transport included (maximum walk distance to a bus stop will be 400 metres with the majority having a much shorter walk).

4.91 This approach was established in the Milton Keynes Public Transport Long Term Vision. The Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Improvements Project currently being delivered as one of the first steps of realising our vision. The vision plans to increase the mode share of bus by a factor of three to four. By 2031 this would equate to the number of trips rising from about 7 million per annum to 35 to 40 million.

4.92 The challenge and opportunity growth presents us (recognised in our vision), is for us to restructure the rest of our public transport network in a consistent and effective way that utilises existing infrastructure to its maximum. New developments will meet this challenge through the plans and policies we have already established in our new Local Plan. The analytical work we have undertaken in looking at future network conditions has assisted us in planning our strategy to meet this challenge.

4.93 Goods vehicles account for a significant proportion of traffic on the road network. Once we have achieved a better understanding of freight activity and problems within the borough, we will work with the industry to develop strategies and schemes that will achieve more efficient routeing of commercial vehicles around Milton Keynes. A Freight Quality Partnership would oversee the delivery of any schemes of this nature.

4.94 The planning of the new growth areas and the increase in densities in Central Milton Keynes also affords the opportunity to increase walking and cycling mode shares.

15 Contributions for transport improvements from developers provided under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1991

75 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 4.95 For some time now we have been charging users for parking places, although there remain many free spaces. We will review the level of charges and the number of free spaces on an annual basis. We aim to balance the costs of driving into CMK compared with using public transport so that bus access is on a more equivalent financial basis. As a result it will encourage more people to use the bus for at least some of their journeys. This will improve the financial viability of services and enable operators to offer a greater range.

4.96 To realise fully these opportunities complementary policies also need to be in place. Parking is a key issue and we approved a parking strategy for the area in December 2004. We are committed to continuing to increase the proportion of charged parking spaces in CMK. Over time the ratio of parking spaces to gross floor area will reduce in CMK. In 2002 the ratio was 1:24 i.e. 1 space for every 24 square metre of development. By 2026 this is predicted to be 1:33. There will also be an increase in multi-storey car parks at the expense of surface parking as densification of CMK occurs.

AIR QUALITY

4.97 Air pollution can have a serious effect on people's health, and therefore quality of life. The UK Air Quality Strategy (plus addendum)16 sets out health-based objectives for nine air pollutants and two for the protection of ecosystems. Scientific evidence suggests that exposure to air pollution has a long-term effect on health and could lead to a reduction in life expectancy. The UK Climate Change Programme 200217 set a legally binding target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. The national target for cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Furthermore, the intention is to reduce total current CO2 emissions by some 60 percent by 2050.

4.98 Road transport is estimated to produce about 20 percent of the total UK CO2 emissions - the fastest growing source. Measures to reduce emissions from transport are therefore vital if the UK is to meet its climate change objectives.

4.99 Metropolitan and non-Metropolitan district councils and unitary authorities have a duty to review and assess local air quality against seven pollutants detailed in the Strategy. Where a pollutant objective is exceeded, authorities must declare Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and prepare Air Quality Action Plans (AQAPs) setting out proposals to tackle the problems. Where transport is the primary factor in air pollution, authorities should integrate AQAPs into the Local Transport Plan.

4.100 Even with present population levels and car use, improvements in air quality were recorded in 2004 when compared with 2003 data. Fluctuations in pollutant concentrations can occur because of differences in weather conditions from year to year, and favourable weather conditions were experienced in 2004. Monitoring of carbon monoxide will be discontinued as data shows there is little likelihood of the objective being exceeded at any location in Milton Keynes. At present, Air Quality

16 The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, DEFRA, January 2000 and addendum February 2003. 17 Climate Change: The UK Programme, DEFRA, February 2001.

76 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Management Areas (AQMAs) are not required in Milton Keynes; however this situation is constantly monitored.

4.101 Progress towards government targets is shown in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 Air Quality Indicators

Indicator National Air Quality Target Milton Keynes Level (2004)

Levels of Nitrogen Dioxide18 Less than 40 µg/m3 21.3 µg/m3 Levels of Particulate Matter (PM10) 19 Less than 40 µg/m3 17.7 µg/m3 Levels of Carbon Monoxide20 Less than 10 mg/m3 1.8 mg/m3

4.102 As this shows, the air quality in Milton Keynes is well within the target levels for all three pollutants. However, there are localised concerns associated with an area close to the M1 near Newport Pagnell, and a location on the High Street South in Olney, with regard to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentration.

4.103 Traffic emissions will almost certainly rise with the projected growth in population, new employment areas and leisure based activities. We will continue to monitor the situation and will introduce AQMAs if required.

4.104 Our Air Quality Strategy objectives are integral to other shared priorities, especially strategies to tackle congestion and accessibility. Many measures mentioned already will have substantial impacts upon air quality, such as reducing car overall use and promoting sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport.

4.105 The environmental impacts of the LTP were assessed in our Strategic Environmental Assessment (see Appendix 8). This assessment concluded that there would be no significant adverse environmental effects of implementing the LTP, including no significant longer-term effects.

SUMMARY 4.106 The preferences for future actions, ranked in descending order, are as follows: • Improving accessibility and public transport particularly for those in need, • Improving road safety, • Reducing congestion, and • Improving air quality. 4.107 Our approach to addressing these issues is based on a clear vision, objectives and a robust strategy that sets out our plans for the future.

18 Annual mean recorded at the Civic Offices. 19 Annual mean recorded at the Civic Offices. 20 Maximum daily running eight-hour mean recorded at the Civic Offices.

77 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

78 Section 4 – Challenges and Opportunities Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 5. VISION, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

5.1 In order to address our current and emerging problems we have set out our vision for the future, the objectives that we are aiming to achieve and our strategy for doing so. These are described below.

THE COMMUNITY STRATEGY VISION

5.2 The Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) for Milton Keynes was formally constituted in 2002. It is made up of the business, public and voluntary sectors in Milton Keynes working in partnership. In 2003, it developed a Local Community Strategy set in the context of the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan (2003) that envisages further growth in Milton Keynes over the period up to 2031. The ‘Milton Keynes Community Strategy, Our Handbook for Change 2004 – 2034’, includes a set of values that will guide the growth Milton Keynes. It is an important document that contains a vision for Milton Keynes and outlines the work that has to be done to build the city over the next thirty years the way we want it to be.

5.3 Our overarching vision set out in our community strategy is:

“to create a city that has soul, energy and dynamism. Our towns, villages, neighbourhoods and spaces will be desirable, fun, affordable, safe and accessible. It will be a learning city, built and developed by a skilled and well-educated population. People will thrive financially and emotionally on the buzz of living or working in this international city of the future.”

5.4 The vision is an overall statement of what sort of community we would like Milton Keynes to be by 2034. There are four overall LSP action plans that cover different parts of the vision and detail what we need to do to realise it. They are: • Action plan 1 – Reinventing our city places and spaces. • Action plan 2 – Delivering the best services. • Action plan 3 – Facilitating participative communities. • Action plan 4 – Managing change together. 5.5 There are eleven major strategic partnerships that will contribute towards achieving our vision. The major strategic partnership that will contribute most to the transport debate and objectives is the MK Transport Partnership.

A TRANSPORT VISION FOR MILTON KEYNES

5.6 Milton Keynes Transport Partnership has a transport vision that translates the overarching vision for the city. The Sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy (SITS) is the transport strategy underpinning the LTP2. The SITS vision is:

79 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 “We aim to open up Milton Keynes by making it a place where everyone can afford to move around conveniently, where economic, social and cultural life can flourish, whilst damage to our environment is minimised.”

5.7 The SITS strategy is:

“To bring about a significant shift from the car to other ways of travelling, such as walking, cycling and public transport”

5.8 Given the importance of encouraging modal shift we have included this as an additional LTP objective.

5.9 In developing this LTP we have been guided by our SITS vision and the following SITS objectives: • All people should be able to move around conveniently and safely, regardless of their circumstances, with those able to pay doing so. • That, in developing our planning policies with our partners, we will actively seek to reduce the number, length and need to make journeys. • To encourage walking, cycling, and quality public transport whilst reducing journeys by car and promoting a healthier lifestyle. • To ensure that Milton Keynes’ economic prosperity is enhanced by our new transport policies by helping people to travel when and where they want, but in more environmentally friendly ways. 5.10 Our recent consultation on LTP2 has re-affirmed that the public supports the SITS objectives and so therefore they underpin this LTP with public backing.

Public Transport Long Term Vision for Milton Keynes 5.11 Improvements to public transport provision will form a central part of the LTP2 as well as in our longer-term strategy. In partnership with MKP, we have therefore developed the long term vision (see Appendix 1) that sustainable transport will have a central role in improving accessibility in Milton Keynes. The public transport vision supports our SITS.

5.12 The vision for the long term is that public transport will play a much greater role in the overall transport mix than at present. This involves the mode share of public transport in Milton Keynes being 3 - 4 times higher than its present share of around 4 percent and 6 percent for journeys to work. Given the increase in population by 2031, this would equate to the number of public transport trips per annum rising from about 7 million at present to about 35 to 40 million; a 5 to 6 fold increase.

5.13 This vision cannot be realised without both a great expansion and improvement of public transport services, and the implementation of appropriate measures to manage demand. This direction of change has already been established in Milton Keynes, and should continue. In addition, the vision of a greatly enhanced role for public transport will involve overcoming major obstacles in terms of both the structure of the city, which is not conducive to public transport use, and the culture of the city, whereby people with cars use them, and other modes are used only when a car is not available.

80 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 5.14 The vision, for the long term, is that Milton Keynes should concentrate on developing a radical restructuring of the bus network and bus services. It should include high quality bus routes and facilities, with bus priority provided on key routes wherever this is needed to maintain reliability of journey times and protection from the disruptive effects of general road traffic.

5.15 In addition, every opportunity will be exploited, particularly with respect to new development areas, to ensure that segregated public transport routes are developed. These projects will also be important in improving links to strategic transport routes as will the development of a park and ride scheme at J13 of the M1.

5.16 However, particular attention will be given to ensure that the east-west and north- south strategic corridors will be developed to include provision for segregated public transport routes. In particular, the infrastructure for any new routes through development areas must be integrated into the master planning and development frameworks prepared for these sites.

5.17 To achieve this vision we have adopted the Government’s four shared priorities as our own and have added four additional ones, particularly important to the circumstances of Milton Keynes in needing to accommodate rapid growth.

THE GOVERNMENT’S SHARED PRIORITIES

5.18 The four objectives, originally set out in SITS, have been defined in relation to the Government’s Shared Priorities. These are: 1. Improving accessibility to schools, shops, jobs and healthcare. • To encourage walking, cycling, and quality public transport, whilst reducing journeys by car and promoting a healthier lifestyle. 2. Improving safety • All people should be able to move around conveniently and safely, regardless of their circumstances, with those able to pay doing so. 3. Reducing congestion • That, in developing our planning policies with our partners, we will actively seek to reduce the number, length and need to make journeys. 4. Improving air quality • To ensure that Milton Keynes economic prosperity is enhanced by our new transport policies by helping people to travel when and where they want, but in more environmentally friendly ways.

LOCAL OBJECTIVES

5.19 These national shared priorities do not fully reflect all the issues facing Milton Keynes outlined earlier, particularly the pressures the city is facing in terms of accommodating the proposed levels of growth in a sustainable way. Thus we have added four further local objectives:

81 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 5. Improving Maintenance • To maintain highways and public rights of way to a standard appropriate to their use. 6. Improving the Quality of Life • To develop the transport network so that it contributes to an improved quality of life and in particular improves and supports: • An improved quality of public spaces and better streetscapes. • A reduction in transport impacts on landscapes and biodiversity. • Enhanced levels of community safety, personal security and crime. • Healthy lifestyles. • Sustainable and prosperous communities. • Reduced levels of noise. • Reductions in transport’s impact on climate change & greenhouse gases. 7. Encouraging sustainable growth • To encourage developments to be as sustainable in transport terms as is possible. 8. Encouraging modal shift • To bring about a significant shift from the car to other ways of travelling, such as walking, cycling and public transport. 5.20 These objectives help set out the key elements of our strategy and are also used to assess the advantages and disadvantages of our proposed interventions. In addition they help set the targets against which our achievements will be measured over the five years of LTP2.

CORPORATE PRIORITIES

5.21 Our LTP2 has been developed in the context of our corporate priorities for 2006-09 which are: • Improve the quality of the environment in which we live; • Improve public transport; • Promote equality and social inclusion and improve health; • Provide affordable housing for those in need; • Deliver high quality outcomes for children and families; • Continue to improve school standards; • Support people who need help to live independent lives; • Reduce crime and the fear of crime; • Improve the experience of our customers; and • Deliver an excellent housing service.

82 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 OUR STRATEGY

Introduction 5.22 Our approach to transport planning involves developing an integrated package of solutions. The package of interventions proposed for LTP2 has been formulated around eight key themes – seven form the core of the LTP2 and one (land-use planning) will be taken forward within the Local Development Framework and other documents as well as via development control decisions.

5.23 The seven themes have been selected as providing a firm base for developing schemes that will be most appropriate for achieving the desired objectives, both the shared priorities and local objectives, over the next five years and within the resources available. Not only does the LTP2 programme reflect these themes, but so do all the other proposals reported in Section 6 (including those being taken forward by other bodies such as MKP).

5.24 Many of these themes have very strong links with others, highlighting their interdependencies and importance. These linkages are illustrated in Figure 5.1. By developing a cohesive and coherent programme of measures that reflect these interdependencies we aim to maximise the economies of scale and value for money provided by the plan. We will be implementing a package comprising both capital and supporting revenue-funded measures over the next five years. In addition, LTP2 funding will provide only a small part of the finance required for the overall longer-term programme.

Figure 5.1 The Strategy Themes and Their Linkages

LLLaaannnddd UUUssseee PPPlllaaannnnnniiinnnggg

IIInnnfffrrraaassstttrrruuuccctttuuurrreee BBBeeehhhaaavvviiiooouuurrraaalll IIImmmppprrrooovvveeemmmeeennntttsss CCChhhaaannngggeee

PPPuuubbbllliiiccc TTTrrraaannnssspppooorrrttt IIInnnfffooorrrmmmaaatttiiiooonnn IIImmmppprrrooovvveeemmmeeennntttsss PPPrrrooovvviiisssiiiooonnn

TTrraaffffiicc Traffic RRRoooaaaddd SSSaaafffeeetttyyy MMMaaannnaaagggeeemmmeeennnttt

DDDeeemmmaaannnddd MMMaaannnaaagggeeemmmeeennnttt

83 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 5.25 We have reviewed each theme to identify the most appropriate individual schemes that will help achieve the objectives. Some interventions will contribute to different themes and hence to several objectives. There are a wide range of potential schemes that could be applied under each theme and some that we will be taking forward within this LTP2 are identified below: • Land-use planning: influencing development to minimise the transport impacts and provide for access by means other than the private car, for example sustainable developments and parking standards; • Infrastructure improvements: to provide more capacity or allow new movements to take place, for example junction improvements and new cycle routes; • Public transport improvements: for example quality public priority transport corridor including, bus priority measures, increased frequencies, better routes, and improved interchange between bus and rail; • Behavioural change measures: to change travel behaviour for example school and company travel plans, car sharing and real-time public transport information; • Information provision: to provide information on a wider range of travel opportunities for example real-time passenger information and driver information systems; • Traffic management: managing the highway network more efficiently to minimise delays to users and to stabilise journey times, for example defining a user hierarchy, parking management, managing streetworks and major events, traffic control systems such as the Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) system and the Variable Message Signing (VMS) system; • Road safety: to make our transport systems safer, for example through road safety engineering, education and training; and, • Demand management: the provision of parking spaces relative to square- metre of development is reducing over time and increasing parking charges. 5.26 Table 5.1 demonstrates the contributions that each theme will have to the achievement of our eight objectives. Those that are expected to make a significant contribution are identified with three ‘ticks’; fewer ‘ticks’ show lesser potential contribution. It should be noted that not all themes contribute to all the objectives. That does not mean that they are unimportant but that their contribution is aimed differently. All the themes of our strategy will make a significant contribution towards the achievement of the objectives, the most important being public transport improvements, traffic management, road safety improvements and land-use planning.

5.27 Together all the themes form the basis for our programme of planned interventions as outlined in section 6.

84 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 5.1 The Potential Contribution of the Strategy Themes to the Objectives

Objective Strategy themes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Land-use planning Infrastructure improvements Public transport Improvements Behavioural change measures Information provision Traffic management Road safety Demand management Key:

Objective 1: Improve access to schools, shops, jobs and healthcare. Objective 2: Improving safety. Objective 3: Reducing congestion. Objective 4: Improving air quality. Objective 5: Improving Maintenance. Objective 6: Improving the Quality of Life. Objective 7: Encouraging sustainable growth. Objective 8: Encouraging modal shift.

= Very strong contribution to objective, = Strong contribution to objective = Contribution to objective

Land Use Planning 5.28 The importance of land-use planning in Milton Keynes cannot be underestimated; the growth agenda will place considerable additional pressures upon the existing and planned transport networks. Providing for future growth will comprise both an intensification of development within CMK and the addition of the east and west expansion areas. We will aim to plan these developments to be as sustainable as possible. In transport terms this means providing a range of local services so that residents do not have to travel far, especially by private car, and so they will have the opportunity for access on foot, cycle or by public transport.

5.29 Developments will be located near to existing or planned public transport provision so that travel by car can be minimised. They will be designed to give priority to access on foot, cycle and by public transport, rather than by car (except for those with mobility impairments). Furthermore the provision of parking spaces relative to the scale (square-metre) of development is being reduced in tandem with public transport improvements so that potential for car-borne movements are further reduced. New parking standards for developments were published in January 2005. We are also increasing parking charges and reducing the availability of free car parking in CMK to encourage modal shift.

5.30 The core theme of land-use planning will therefore be critical in helping us to address the emerging transport issues and to help achieve our transport objectives. However, land-use planning measures are not the subject of this LTP but are described in detail in other documents, namely the Local Plan and the Milton Keynes South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy.

85 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Infrastructure Improvements 5.31 Milton Keynes has an impressive programme of infrastructure improvements planned to cater for the future expansion of the city. These cover schemes designed to assist pedestrians, new cycle routes, junction improvements to improve bus travel as well as capacity enhancements to the road network.

5.32 The approach will be to provide as much new and improved infrastructure for the more sustainable modes of travel and then, as part of the status of Milton Keynes as a growth centre, to provide for general traffic, including freight movements.

5.33 The Milton Keynes Partnership has developed a programme that sets out the longer term programme comprising all the infrastructure improvement schemes and this is summarised in Section 6. In addition our Transport Asset Management Plan sets out how we propose to ensure that the quality of our existing (and planned) highway network is maintained to a high standard (see Appendix 7).

Public Transport Improvements 5.34 The core of our strategy is the improvement of public transport to enable and encourage modal shift. Improvements will be designed to secure quality public priority transport corridors including, bus priority measures, increased frequencies, better routes, and improved interchange between bus and rail.

5.35 Better public transport will complement our land-use planning by ensuring that new developments are provided with easy access to the main centres by public transport. Junction improvements will support the improvement of public transport by providing priority on the main corridors at a time of traffic growth and expanding congestion problems.

5.36 The Public Transport Long Term Vision (Appendix 1) outlines our proposals for improving passenger transport services during the lifetime of LTP2.

Behavioural Change Measures 5.37 Even if we significantly enhance the walking, cycling and public transport networks there is no guarantee that people will naturally change their travel behaviour. Thus to encourage a wider choice of travel modes we will enhance our programme of school and company travel plans that will promote car sharing, and market walking, cycling, and public transport.

5.38 Our approach will be to continue to contribute and support national initiatives such as walk and cycle to work weeks, and maintain our active participation in the ‘in town without my car’ event.

Information Provision 5.39 To supplement the behavioural change measures we will invest in real time passenger public transport information as well as improved timetables to ensure that the public have easy access to knowledge to encourage more sustainable travel. Not only will better information be provided for public transport users but we will also improve our driver information systems so that people know the best routes and can more easily find parking spaces using the Variable Message Signing (VMS) system.

86 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 5.40 The Public Transport Long Term Vision (Appendix 1) sets out our proposals for improving passenger transport information while improvements to car parking signage are addressed in the Traffic Management Plan (Appendix 6). Traffic Management 5.41 Managing the highway network more efficiently is essential to minimise delays to users and to stabilise journey times. It is also a requirement under the Traffic Management Act 2004. A more efficient highway network means that less will need to be spent on potentially expensive new infrastructure. The object will be to secure the best balance between the different modes of travel. We have nominated an officer to have responsibility for the management of the Council’s roads.

5.42 The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) comprises three main elements: • Minimising the impact of roadworks, events and other relevant activities on all highway users, including pedestrians and cyclists; • Managing the network to make the most effective use of the roadspace; and • Providing a longer-term strategy to reduce congestion by encouraging the increasing use of sustainable transport options and tackling congestion hotspots. 5.43 The TMP sets out a user hierarchy. In agreeing arrangements for works on the highway, including diversions, we will work to the following hierarchy in order of importance: • Disabled and visually impaired people; • Pedestrians; • Cyclists; • Buses; • Freight; • Motorcycles; • Cars; and • On-street parking. 5.44 The TMP also defines priority routes and traffic sensitive streets setting out our approach to managing congestion.

5.45 Four other strategies are also important for improving traffic management: the Public Transport Long Term Vision (Appendix 1), the Cycle Action Plan (Appendix 2), the Walking Strategy (Appendix 3) and the Strategy for Powered Two Wheelers (Appendix 4).

Road Safety 5.46 Make our road networks safer will require a three-pronged approach: road safety engineering; education and training especially for younger people; and enforcement of road traffic law. Travel plans that we are developing with schools also help to reduce casualties close to schools.

87 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 5.47 The Road Safety Strategy (Appendix 5) sets out our proposals for achieving reductions in road traffic collisions as well as danger on the highway network.

Demand Management 5.48 Milton Keynes has large areas allocated to parking, much of it free. While being of great benefit to many residents and visitors to the city it also contributes to congestion and delays to passenger transport services. Excessive parking is a deterrent to the use of other modes of travel. Therefore we are reducing the provision of parking spaces relative to square-metre of development over time and increasing parking charges over time.

5.49 This approach is compliant with the principles set out in Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG13). We introduced maximum parking standards in January 2005 as advised in PPG13.

5.50 The Traffic Management Plan sets out our approach to the enforcement of parking restrictions and Traffic Regulation Orders as well as car parking signage. The decriminalisation of parking throughout the Council area was introduced in 2002.

STRATEGY IMPACTS

5.51 To ensure that our strategy does not introduce any unexpected problems we have assessed it against three criteria: accessibility impacts, impact on congestion and environmental impacts.

Accessibility Impacts 5.52 Our LTP is focused upon improving accessibility during a period of rapid expansion in the population. The mapping and other analyses undertaken during the preparation of our accessibility strategy highlighted the importance of improving access to healthcare, particularly hospitals by public transport. As a result, our first local accessibility action plan will focus upon improvements to health facilities (see section 6 and Annex A).

5.53 Appendix B (of the accessibility strategy) shows the number of dwellings in each estate that can access hospitals in the Milton Keynes area within 30 and 40 minutes. Using the model, we have quantified the increase in accessibility that would be realised if the bus journey time from the estates to the hospitals could be reduced by 10 minutes. The interventions that are being introduced to provide improvements to bus services are described in section 6 of this LTP. Using this information, we ranked the estates in terms of the additional number of dwellings that would be able to access hospitals within 30 minutes if the required interventions were put in place. This is detailed in Table 5.2.

88 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 5.2 Improvement in Accessibility to Hospitals by Estates

5.54 Newport Pagnell would benefit significantly from the proposed improvements set out in the LTP, with a further 29 estates benefiting in varying degrees. In Appendix B (of the accessibility strategy), we have also shown the ranking for the four ‘at-risk’ groups: people who do not have access to a car; 16-24 year olds; people with a Long Term Limiting Illness (LTLI); and people aged 65 and above. Noticeably there is not much difference between the rankings for the at-risk groups and the ‘all households’ group.

5.55 As shown in Figure 4.5 (see Annex A, the Accessibility Strategy), the 30 estates have been put into three groups, with the top 10 ranked estates being shown in red. If the journey time to hospitals was reduced by 10 minutes for all ten estates then 81 percent of all households would be able to access their nearest hospitals within 30 minutes, which is an improvement of 16 percent.

5.56 Our three target estates of Beanhill, Coffee Hall and Netherfield, are all contained within Woughton Ward, which is within the ten percent most deprived wards in England. Beanhill, Netherfield and Coffee Hall are ranked 1-3 as having the most difficulties in terms of social exclusion. Beanhill is ranked 3rd out of the 103 estates in Milton Keynes for the number of hospital admissions while Coffee Hall has one of the highest rates for emergency hospital admissions. As Table 3.1 (see Annex A in the Accessibility Strategy) shows: 18 percent of the residents of Beanhill are permanently sick or disabled; 13 percent of residents of Coffee Hall; and 8 percent of residents of Netherfield. In terms of journey time, the Milton Keynes General is the nearest hospital for nearly all of the residents in the borough. The hospital has a Redway running around the site, and this is linked to Coffee Hall, Netherfield and Beanhill. While Woughton Ward ranks as the fifth best in terms of accessibility and the accessibility strategy will direct actions to improve life chances for the residents

89 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 of the three estates as a whole, the LTP, through the public transport improvements, will improve access to healthcare for all in Milton Keynes.

The Impact on Congestion 5.57 We have used the Milton Keynes Multi Modal Transport Model, described in section 4, to assess the impacts of our strategy on congestion. We wanted to understand the congestion impacts not only in terms of car traffic but particularly how the strategy would improve conditions for public transport.

5.58 In order to do this we have included the measures contained in our LTP2 into the model (the do-something scenario) so that the effects can be compared to the situation without these measures (the do-minimum). The forecast model includes all the infrastructure measures planned to be in place by 2011, including the re- ordering of public transport to core routes with priority measures. Major infrastructure improvements include the CMK Public Transport Improvements Project, the M1 Junction 14 Area Improvements Scheme and the M1 Junction 13 to A421 Dualling Scheme. Growth as outlined in the Local Plan is also included.

5.59 The results from this modelling analysis are illustrated in Figure 5.2 and summarised in Table 5.3. The results cover the morning peak period from 8am to 9am, traditionally the highest level of demand.

5.60 These show that the strategy results in considerable improvements in traffic congestion on the network. Average speed on the network, which is generally considered to be a good proxy for congestion levels, increases by 8.5 percent between the do-minimum and the do-something scenarios. The amount of time spent travelling on the network reduces by 10 percent.

Figure 5.2 Improvement in Network Performance Resulting From the Strategy

2001 2011'do minimum' 2011'do something' 1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

index 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Travel Time Distance Speed Fuel trips Indicator

90 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Table 5.3 Summary of Network Performance Statistics – Improvement in Network Performance Resulting From the Strategy

2001 2011 do 2011 do 2011 minimum Something Change (%) Travel time 100 167 150 -10% Distance 100 158 154 -2.5% Speed 100 94 102 +8.5% Fuel 100 165 158 -4% Trips 100 121 120 -1% 5.61 Further analysis of this improvement in congestion is illustrated in Figure 5.3 below. This shows the change in journey time on key routes across Milton Keynes that arises from the implementation of our strategy. These routes have been selected to provide a comparison between the journey time savings that arise on the main public transport routes across the town (routes 1,2,3,4, and 8) and those without such public transport significance. Figure 5.3 clearly illustrates that it is the public transport routes where the greater benefits in terms of congestion relief occur. This evidence supports the key part of our strategy to improve public transport and to support growth in a sustainable way. Figure 5.3 Improvement in Route Journey Times Resulting From the Implementation of Our Strategy 2001 2011do minimum 2011do something

20

18

16

14

12

10 8

Time (minutes) 6

4

2

0 123456789 Journey Key

1 Blue H5 – J14 to CMK 2 Light Blue Westcroft to CMK 3 Pink Bletchley to CMK 4 Red H6 – J14 to CMK 5 Green A422 Newport to A5 6 Orange A421 H8 - M1 (J13) 7 Orange M1 (J13) - H8 - A421 8 Purple WEA to CMK 9 Yellow A5 to CMK

91 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 5.62 In summary if we implement the minimum, the level of service on the major roads in Milton Keynes will deteriorate over the period of this LTP. Our plans will start to address some of the emerging problems.

5.63 We have also used this modelling work to assist in the development of targets and indicators and in the planning of the trajectories that we describe in Section 7. We have done this to ensure that the targets that we have set are robust and underpinned by empirical analysis.

Environmental Impact 5.64 Under European Directive 2001/42/EC, all national, regional and local authorities must carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment of certain types of plans, of which transport is one. The Council has therefore undertaken a Strategic Environment Assessment of our second LTP.

5.65 The Strategic Environmental Assessment aims to ensure that environmental impacts are taken into account throughout the development of the plan to provide for a high level of protection of the local environment and promote sustainable development. A scoping report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment was submitted to the DfT in September 2005. The four main statutory bodies were consulted on this and the replies received were noted and taken into account. The environmental appraisal of the LTP2 strategies was then undertaken and described in the Environmental Report (Appendix 8). Comments on the Environmental Report will be reviewed and reported in the Post-Adoption Strategic Environmental Assessment Statement, which will be produced after the LTP2 is adopted (after March 2006).

Strategic Environmental Assessment Objectives 5.66 An important initial step in the Strategic Environmental Assessment is to investigate other plans and programmes, which have a relationship to the Milton Keynes LTP. This informs the setting of objectives specific to the Strategic Environmental Assessment. This is reported in the Scoping Report. The process has helped to highlight environmental problems and opportunities, which led to the comprehensive analysis of the environmental baseline.

5.67 The key themes arising from the analysis were identified as the need for policies to work towards: • Improving the health and well being of the population and reduce inequalities in health. • Reducing air pollution and ensure air quality continues to improve. • Reducing noise pollution. • Reducing road traffic and congestion through modal shift to more sustainable transport modes. • Improved efficiency in land use through the re-use of previously developed land and existing buildings. • Improving accessibility and transport links from residential areas to key services and employment areas.

92 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Protecting local water resources and improve the quality of surface and groundwater. • Reducing the use of non-renewable resources and protect local mineral and water resources. • Reducing the risk of flooding. • Addressing the causes of climate change through reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. • Increasing energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources. • Protecting, enhancing and making accessible heritage assets and their settings. • Protecting, managing and restoring soil resources. • Promoting protection and enhancement of the countryside and landscape character. • Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and important wildlife habitats. 5.68 The key issues that were identified from an examination of the baseline environment in Milton Keynes are: • Dominant use of the car: Milton Keynes was originally designed to cater for the car, which presents a distinct set of local challenges for improving accessibility for non-car transport modes. • Crime and safety: There are perceived safety concerns of residents, which mainly arise from underpasses, secluded areas and overgrown vegetation that exists along Redways routes (local walking and cycling network). • Accessibility: Journeys to work are difficult to integrate with the public transport network. Outlying locations combined with shift working patterns means that these locations are not aligned with typical journey-to-work patterns. Hospitals are the least accessible service in Milton Keynes. A significant proportion of the rural population may face difficulties accessing the services they require. • Road safety: The decrease in the numbers of killed or seriously injured casualties may be increasingly difficult to sustain with increased traffic volumes in the future. • Rising volumes of traffic and congestion: Congestion levels are currently only localised and associated with peak periods. However, development pressures will significantly increase the volume of traffic (for example by 21 percent between 2001 and 2011). Congestion will increase travel time by 67 percent, and reduce traffic speeds by 6 percent. • Poor air quality: Localised concerns at the M1 near Newport Pagnell, and in Olney, coupled with future growth in traffic may require the future declaration of Air Quality Management Areas. • Noise: Noise hotspots are expected along the main road networks and isolated generators (for example railways). Predicted growth rates in traffic could exacerbate hotspots.

93 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Assessment of Environmental Effects 5.69 Overall, the Strategic Environmental Assessment has not identified any significant adverse environmental effects of implementing the LTP2. In some respects, the policies and proposals put forward are likely to lead to some slightly beneficial environmental effects. General mitigation and monitoring recommendations have been made in the Environmental Report (Appendix 8) to help ensure that the findings of the Strategic Environmental Assessment are realised.

5.70 The Strategic Environmental Assessment also indicates that the LTP2 will not have significant longer-term effects. This is because, in general, no significant adverse effects have been identified, and the positive environmental effects identified are slight in intensity.

5.71 It is estimated that the LTP2 policies should help cap increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as the level of these will be slightly less (i.e. about 0.8 percent lower) than the baseline (‘do-minimum’) case. In the longer term, it is estimated that by 2016, CO2 emissions will be about 5 percent lower than the 2011 baseline.

5.72 The actions set out in the LTP2 are predicted to maintain and improve air quality overall. All Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) are expected to be achieved throughout Milton Keynes by the relevant date.

5.73 It also is estimated that the growth in traffic and changes in traffic patterns over the plan period could lead to significant increases in traffic noise on almost 10 percent of roads in the area. However, at the same time, significant decreases may occur on more than 22 percent of roads.

5.74 Given that the increases are most likely to occur on major roads and mostly away from sensitive receptors, overall the change in the noise climate is likely to be neutral, and may even improve slightly in terms of impacts on receptors.

5.75 No other likely significant environmental effects were identified in the assessment. The Environmental Report, however, recommends various mitigation measures for consideration by the Council. The Environmental Report also sets out monitoring proposals for environmental issues that will be incorporated by Milton Keynes Council into the monitoring and reporting arrangements for the LTP2.

Rural Proofing 5.76 Rural proofing is a commitment by Government to ensure that all its domestic policies take account of rural circumstances and needs (Rural White Paper, 2000).

5.77 It is a mandatory part of the policy process, which means that, as policies are developed, policy makers should systematically: • Consider whether their policy is likely to have a different impact in rural areas, because of particular rural circumstances or needs; • Make proper assessment of those impacts, if these are likely to be significant; and, • Adjust the policy, where appropriate, with solutions to meet rural needs and circumstances.

94 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 5.78 Rural Proofing applies to all policies, programmes and initiatives and it applies to both design and delivery stages, including this LTP. Our demand responsive transport, rural bus services and the Countryside Traffic Management Strategy described in Section 3 will all be maintained and enhanced over the period of this LTP.

5.79 We have reviewed the impact of all our proposed policies and interventions to assess their impact on the rural areas of Milton Keynes. While around two-thirds of the local authority is rural in nature, only around one-third of the population currently reside there. By focusing our future development within the centre of the city and emphasising the improvements to public and community transport to enhance access to key locations, the impact of the LTP upon rural areas will not be as significant. The only possible adverse impact will be as a result of further car commuting into the city from other places. Thus we are aiming to maintain and increase the self-containment ratio for the city that is the proportion of residents who live and work in the city.

Entrance to Hanslope village

SUMMARY

5.80 Our vision, objectives and strategy have been defined in this section. The next section describes the detailed actions we plan to undertake to deliver the strategy and our objectives.

95 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

96 Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Strategy Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 6. THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2006-07 TO 2010-11

DEVELOPMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

6.1 Previous sections have detailed how we have developed the LTP2 strategy over time. However, it is worth briefly summarising the process through which the implementation plan was developed. We describe the various components of the plan later in this section and in the following order: • Integrated transport and maintenance block funded from LTP2; • Other sources of integrated transport and maintenance block funding including the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership (TVSRP); • Council revenue funding; • Major schemes funded from LTP1; • Major schemes funded from LTP2; • Committed schemes funded by the Growth Areas and Community Infrastructure Funds; • The MKP Transport Delivery Plan 2006-2011; • Schemes identified by other delivery agencies; and, • The Accessibility Action Plan.

Political and Strategic Context 6.2 As a designated growth area, Milton Keynes has been identified to deliver an additional 71,000 homes in the period up to 2031. We have emphasised throughout this document that growth will create huge pressure on the transport infrastructure. The Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan makes it clear that this growth must be achieved in a manner, which reduces dependence on the private car.

6.3 The strategies and visions for Milton Keynes have recognised this requirement. Ongoing consultation with our partners and stakeholders has reached out to those that have an interest in the well-being of Milton Keynes to ensure that their views are also considered.

Analysis of Challenges and Opportunities: 6.4 As part of the LTP1 process, there has been an ongoing analysis of challenges and opportunities reported in Annual Progress Reports, the recent Audit Commission inspection report and in the many strategies that have been developed and adopted. This has also involved an ongoing analysis of solutions in terms of what has worked and what hasn't - indeed we received praise from the Audit Commission for our performance monitoring.21

21 Audit Commission Inspection Report of Milton Keynes Council Environmental Services May 2005

97 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Development of Objectives 6.5 Our group of eight objectives was developed as set out in Section 5. In summary they are: • Improving accessibility to schools, shops, jobs and healthcare, • Improving safety, • Reducing congestion, • Improving air quality, • Improving maintenance, • Improving the quality of life, • Encouraging sustainable growth, and, • Encouraging modal shift.

LTP2 Strategy 6.6 The strategy takes the objectives that have been developed and outlines the overall approach by which they will be achieved. However, we will react to unexpectedly rapid or slow progress in delivery of the implementation plan, or from unforeseen pressures elsewhere. We will manage revisions to maintain the overall level of progress towards meeting the outcome targets and eight Station Square, Central Milton Keynes objectives of LTP2.

CORPORATE FUNDING STRATEGY

6.7 All schemes in the Council’s various capital programmes, including transport, are subject to a common funding strategy and project prioritisation process. This is to ensure consistency across directorates. The existing process was last reviewed in November 2004.

6.8 Historically, the total value of bids invariably exceeds the funding available. A process, therefore, was required to allocate funds corporately. We introduced this prioritisation process to manage this situation and to ensure that the approved programme delivered corporate priorities and met targets.

6.9 Initially, officers prioritise schemes using a methodology that evaluates and scores schemes against the following key elements: • Statutory duties or other legal requirements; • The Council’s Priorities (which includes improving public transport) and Manifesto Commitments;

98 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Partnership working, best value improvements, delivery of service objectives, equalities issues and other corporate objectives; • Environmental impacts; • Extent of ring-fenced or specific funding; and • Impact on the revenue budget. 6.10 Officers score the bids and then recommend a prioritised programme to Members that is within available resources. The prioritised programme is for guidance only. Members have the discretion to include or exclude schemes. LTP2 targets and objectives will determine these priorities.

6.11 One significant feature of the process is that 90 percent of the Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue) Single Capital Pot Element is earmarked to the relevant service. For transport that means that a minimum of 90 percent of the LTP settlement is assured. The remaining 10 percent will be used to fund additional bids from across the Council, which could include transport schemes. However, the process could also result in more than 100 percent of the LTP settlement being allocated for transport schemes. This strategy is reviewed on an annual basis.

6.12 For the purpose of the LTP2, we have assumed 100 percent LTP settlement funding. This is based on the fact that since the introduction of the Single Capital Pot (SCP) in 2002, capital expenditure on transport from corporate funds has mainly exceeded the 100 percent settlement level. This is an indication of the increased corporate priority given to transport and the recognition of the need to deliver the LTP2 and meet targets.

The Implementation Process 6.13 The process to prioritise the implementation plan is designed to produce a plan that is deliverable within the available resources. It is applied across the whole corporate capital programme to achieve consistency across sectors. More detail is provided regarding this process later in the section. Our implementation plan falls out of this process.

6.14 The process allows us to develop a carefully thought out delivery plan that is challenging whilst remaining realistic with the resources at our disposal. This delivery plan will enable us to make progress towards achieving our vision for Milton Keynes.

6.15 Funding comes from a variety of sources locally and nationally in both the public and private sectors. Over the coming year and beyond we will continue our work to procure further funding to enable us to enhance this plan over the LTP2 period.

6.16 In recent years, we have made significant progress in meeting our targets. This is in the context of a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the housing provisions in the sub-region and the impact of more detailed consultation on two major LTP schemes that were ‘provisionally approved’ in LTP1 - the Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Access Improvements Scheme and the Bletchley Link.

6.17 Planning in the context of these uncertainties has been difficult but we now have a better definition of the growth provision. Furthermore, we have set up a Joint

99 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Transport Delivery Team (JTDT) with our partners, MKP; to take the required plans forward to deliver growth.

DFT ‘PLANNING GUIDELINES’ FOR LTP2

6.18 In December 2005, the DfT published the settlement for 2006-07, the first year of LTP2, and outlined the ‘planning guidelines’ for the integrated transport and maintenance blocks to cover the last four years of LTP2, 2007-08 to 2010-11. We have developed an implementation plan based on these allocations.

6.19 The settlement and ‘planning guidelines’ cover two funding blocks - integrated transport and maintenance. They do not cover funding for major schemes (costing more than £5 million), exceptional schemes, primary route bridge maintenance works and emergency maintenance funding. The allocations are set out in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1 LTP2 Settlement and Outline ‘Planning Guidelines’

All Figures in £’000s Block 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 TOTAL

Integrated Transport £1,577 £2,008 £2,374 £2,772 £3,204 £11,935

Maintenance £2,175 £2,218 £2,329 £2,446 £2,568 £11,736

Total £3,752 £4,226 £4,703 £5,218 £5,772 £23,671

Integrated Transport Block 6.20 In 2005, the DfT consulted on the introduction of a formula to distribute much of the integrated transport block between councils. The DfT made some amendments to the formula as an outcome of the consultation. The settlement for 2006-07 has been shaped after taking into account the assessment of the Provisional LTP2 and an assessment of progress in delivering LTP1 in 2004-05 as well as the new formula. Accordingly, we have set an implementation plan for LTP2 that is deliverable within the funding levels set by DfT.

Maintenance Block 6.21 For maintenance, the ‘planning guidelines’ are based on the formula used in LTP1. The amount available for distribution is split into two categories, for roads and for bridges. The size of these is based upon the relative sizes of the latest national backlog figures. The present distribution differs from previous years in that more funding is being allocated on the basis of bridge and non-principal road conditions than previously, and less on the basis of principal road condition.

6.22 The roads allocations are based upon a local authority's lengths of principal, classified non-principal, and unclassified roads and their condition. For principal roads, deflectograph results have been used. For other roads, the Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) visual condition survey data has been used. The

22 These indicative allocations were made in December 2000, and are not the actual allocations we eventually received

100 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 exact condition value is not used; the local authority is then assigned to one of four condition bands. In the future, more accurate Scanner Condition Data will be used.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - INTEGRATED TRANSPORT AND MAINTENANCE BLOCKS 6.23 Table 6.2 outlines our implementation plan for the integrated transport and maintenance blocks for each of the five years of LTP2, based on the ‘planning guidelines’ as reported in Table 6.1. The table also shows the objectives to which each scheme contributes. Contributions are categorised as very strong, strong and medium.

101 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 6.2 LTP2 Indicative Funding Allocations 2006-07 to 2010-11 By Scheme Type

All figures in £'000s Objective e

e n

Schemes by Scheme Type ility abl 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 TOTAL nanc l Shift gestio Life Sustain Growth Moda Accessib Safety Con Air Quality Mainte Quality Of

WALKING & CYCLING

IMPROVED CYCLE FACILITIES 195 195 195 200 205 990 z z z z z z PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND z CROSSINGS 40 40 40 45 50 215 z z z z z z

REDWAY IMPROVEMENTS inc, CYCLE ROUTES 175 175 175 180 185 890 z z z z z z

Sub Total 410 410 410 425 440 2095

BUS PRIORITY & BUS INFRASTRUCTURE

QUALITY BUS INITIATIVE 235 500 600 800 900 3,035 z z z z z z

IMPROVED BUS PASSENGER ACCESS 62 100 100 171 200 633 z z z z z z

z z INFORMATION 65 128 130 180 250 753 z z

Sub Total 362 728 830 1,151 1,350 4,421

102 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

All figures in £'000s Objective e

e n

Schemes by Scheme Type ility abl 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 TOTAL nanc l Shift gestio Accessib Safety Con Air Quality Mainte Quality Of Life Sustain Growth Moda

LOCAL SAFETY SCHEMES & TRAFFIC CALMING

SAFER ROUTES & SAFER JOURNEY SCHEMES 200 200 210 210 215 1,035 z z z z z

URBAN TRAFFIC CALMING SCHEMES 200 220 220 225 230 1,095 z z z z z

LOCAL SAFETY SCHEMES 150 170 180 180 190 870 z z z z z

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OUTSIDE SCHOOLS 50 60 60 65 70 305 z z z z z

RURAL TRAFFIC CALMING SCHEMES 20 20 20 20 25 105 z z z z z Sub Total 620 670 690 700 730 3,410

GENERAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

RESPONSIVE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 60 70 80 85 90 385 z z z

CONGESTION RELIEF 50 50 284 325 497 1,206 z z z z

SPEED LIMIT REVIEWS 30 30 30 35 40 165 z z z

z AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 30 35 35 35 40 175 z z z

z QUALITY FREIGHT PARTNERSHIP 15 15 15 16 17 78 z z Sub Total 185 200 444 496 684 2,009

IT SUB TOTAL 1,577 2,008 2,374 2,772 3,204 11,935

103 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

All figures in £'000s Objective e

e n

Schemes by Scheme Type ility abl 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 TOTAL nanc l Shift gestio Accessib Safety Con Air Quality Mainte Quality Of Life Sustain Growth Moda

BRIDGE & HIGHWAYS STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE

BRIDGE MAINTENANCE 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 z z

CARRIAGEWAY MAINTENANCE 904 963 994 1,091 1,178 5,130 z z

z FOOTWAY MAINTENANCE 271 255 335 355 390 1,606 z z z z z z

Sub Total 2,175 2,218 2,329 2,446 2,568 11,736

LTP2 GRAND TOTAL 3,752 4,226 4,703 5,218 5,772 23,671

KEY

z = Very strong contribution to objective, z = Strong contribution to objective, z = Medium contribution to objective

104 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Ensuring an Appropriate Allocation of Resources to Objectives 6.24 As a means of checking that our implementation plan is dedicating appropriate levels of resources to each of our objectives, Table 6.3 has been produced based on the total level of funding on schemes and weighted by how strongly that scheme contributes to each objective. Expenditure that contributes very strongly to an objective is weighted by a factor of 3, for strong and medium contributions the factor is 2 and 1 respectively.

6.25 If we take the case of cycle facilities as an example and the contribution of that scheme category to the accessibility objective, then it would be reasonable to say that cycle facilities contribute strongly to that objective. Accordingly the cycling facility expenditure would be multiplied by a factor of three. The process is repeated for all schemes and objectives. The total weighted expenditure for each objective for each year is then divided by the total weighted LTP expenditure to the percentages in the table below.

Table 6.3 Weighted Relative Expenditure on Objectives Over The LTP Period

2006-07 to Objective 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2010-11

Accessibility 1.8% 2.2% 2.5% 2.9% 3.2% 13%

Safety 1.8% 2.1% 2.6% 3.0% 3.4% 13%

Congestion 1.3% 1.4% 1.7% 1.7% 2.0% 8%

Air Quality 2.6% 3.0% 3.4% 3.9% 4.3% 17%

Maintenance 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 2.8% 13%

Quality of Life 1.8% 2.2% 2.5% 2.9% 3.2% 13%

Sustainable Growth 1.7% 2.1% 2.3% 2.7% 2.9% 12%

Modal Shift 1.8% 2.2% 2.4% 2.7% 3.0% 12%

6.26 The final column of the table suggests that each of the objectives are reasonably well represented over the LTP period. The other columns indicate that there is also consistency on a year-by-year basis, which means that resources are being dedicated to all of the objectives from year one. The high expenditure on the maintenance objective reflects the significant maintenance backlog that currently exists. The high levels of expenditure to improve air quality results from improvements designed to address the emerging problems of traffic growth and congestion.

FURTHER INTEGRATED TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE

6.27 Whilst the implementation plan above allows us to make significant contributions in support of our targets, objectives and long-term vision for Milton Keynes, there is no doubt that additional funds from a better LTP2 settlement or from elsewhere would significantly enhance our integrated transport delivery programme. Table 6.4

105 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 identifies how an additional 25 percent of funding would be spent on integrated transport.

6.28 The additional funding would be targeted to support our objectives of improving accessibility, encouraging modal shift and reducing congestion. This targeting would lead to increases in walking, cycling, public transport patronage, and reduce congestion. This would enable us to stretch our targets for walking, cycling, public transport and congestion.

6.29 The additional expenditure would focus on: • Developing a Strategic Redway Network - it would focus on a core of pedestrian/cycle routes to Central Milton Keynes using existing Redways with additional links. Particular attention would be paid to reducing negative perceptions of safety, thereby supporting the Community Safety Partnership; • Accelerating the rate of introduction of Real Time Passenger Information to cover a wider area of the Quality Bus Initiative network at an earlier stage; and • Contributing to delivering the public transport and highway infrastructure identified in the MKP Transport Delivery Programme (see Table 6.9).

Redway in Bletchley

106 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 6.4 Further Integrated Transport Expenditure

Objective e

e n

Schemes By Scheme Type ility abl 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 TOTAL nanc l Shift gestio Growth Moda Accessib Safety Con Air Quality Mainte Quality Of Life Sustain

WALKING & CYCLING SCHEMES

REDWAY STRATEGIC NETWORK 165 165 165 165 825

BUS PRIORITY & INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMES

QUALITY BUS INITIATIVE 223 242 263 284 1,235

GENERAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

CONGESTION RELIEF 114 187 265 352 918

TOTAL INTEGRATED TRANSPORT 502 594 693 801 2,590

KEY

= Very strong contribution to objective, = Strong contribution to objective, = Medium contribution to objective

107 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR INTEGRATED TRANSPORT AND MAINTENANCE BLOCKS INCLUDING TVSRP

6.30 Table 6.5 outlines the sources of capital funding for the approved transport implementation programme for 2005-06 (at 28 February 2006), the last year of LTP1. Capital funding from the Council’s own sources for 2005-06 brings the total planned transport capital expenditure to £4.259 million, 16 percent above the LTP settlement of £3.668 million for 2005-06.

Table 6.5 Sources of Capital Funding for Transport in 2005-06

Source of funding 2005-06

MKC capital resources £4,259,000

Planning Delivery Grant £168,000

English Partnerships £144,000

Town and parish councils £56,000 £505,000

Planning obligations from development £95,000

Other third party funding £42,000

TOTAL £4,764,000

6.31 As well as the capital funding secured through our own corporate resources, there are a number of other sources of funding to assist in the delivery of our targets and objectives. The other main sources of funding for integrated transport are from: • Town and parish councils; • Planning obligations; • Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership (TVSRP); • English Partnerships/Milton Keynes Partnership; and, • Other grants, for example Planning Delivery Grant (ODPM). 6.32 Planned changes to funding for TVSRP were announced by DfT in December 2005. It will provide welcomed additional flexibility to target local road safety problems in the most appropriate and cost effective manner, whilst maintaining the ongoing costs of speed enforcement.

6.33 To further develop our road safety strategy, so as maximise the benefits of the new funding arrangements when they come into effect in April 2007, we will be working closely with our existing partners (including Thames Valley Police and other relevant agencies in , and Buckinghamshire) throughout 2006.

6.34 We will extend this partnership to include other stakeholders where appropriate; particularly in health and fire safety. It is anticipated that during the life of LTP2, targeted enforcement activity will be maintained and developed so as to build on the very positive results achieved by the strategic data led approach of the current TVSRP. The recent Year 4 evaluation study by University College London

108 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 demonstrated a 44.7 percent reduction in KSIs (killed or seriously injured) at camera sites in Thames Valley.

6.35 By delivering casualty reduction measures, including education, through a coordinated partnership significant cost savings are anticipated and additional benefits of cross-border collaboration will be forthcoming. The sharing of information on the outcome of road safety work with our local partners in the Thames Valley area and with regional partners will help further reinforce effectiveness through a thorough feedback process.

6.36 In 2004-05, there was a contribution of over £500,000 from other sources to the transport capital programme. The budget from other sources for 2005-06 is just over £500,000 (see Table 6.5). These levels of funding are not predictable but it is a fair assumption to state that we would expect this third party fund funding to be of the order of £500,000 per annum through the life of LTP2.

6.37 There may well be an increase over time, particularly in relation to contributions from planning obligations as growth proceeds. Subsequently, we have assumed a level of £500,000 of funding per annum from other sources in adopting our targets.

COUNCIL REVENUE FUNDING

6.38 The transport revenue programme supports the Council’s transport capital programme. The budget for 2005-06 is indicative of the annual level of funding that should be available during the life of LTP2. The budget for 2005-06 is approximately £10.5 million. The figures in Table 6.6 do not include Council staff funding for these activities. They should, therefore, not be compared with annual grant funding allocations. Table 6.6 Council Transport Revenue Funding

2004-05 2005-06 Planned Block Out-turn £0.0 millions £0.0 millions Integrated Transport £4.0 £4.0

Maintenance £5.5 £6.5 Total £9.5 £10.5 6.39 Integrated transport revenue supports concessionary fares, community transport, and subsidies to bus services. These are key areas that are contributing to the objectives of improving accessibility and the quality of life especially for those who do not have access to a car and the more vulnerable. It funds schemes such as CMK CarShare and the rural Hanslope Harrier Demand Responsive Bus Service.

6.40 The maintenance budget also includes footpath and Redway maintenance, and street lighting as well as highways and bridge maintenance. These are also key areas that contribute to improving accessibility as well as the objective of maintaining and improving maintenance.

6.41 The main sources of funding for the revenue programme are from: • Government Revenue Support Grant; • Central Milton Keynes parking income; and

109 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 • Other Government funding, for example Rural Bus Subsidy Grant.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - MAJOR SCHEMES - LTP1

CMK Public Transport Access Improvements Scheme 6.42 Our first priority for a major scheme in LTP1 was the Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Access Improvements Scheme. A major scheme is defined as an individual scheme that has a gross cost greater than £5 million.

6.43 Of the additional 71,000 homes planned for Milton Keynes by 2031 around 6,000 will be located in Central Milton Keynes (CMK). The aim of this scheme, therefore, is to improve the reliability and accessibility of public transport, and support the Sustainable Communities Plan. The scheme was originally submitted in 2003 and was ‘provisionally accepted’ for funding in December 2003.

6.44 In November 2005, we submitted a revised bid at the lower cost of £5.772 million. We are still waiting for a ministerial decision on full funding, which is expected in spring 2006. The scheme complements the successful submission by English Partnerships in November 2003 to fund the Central Milton Keynes Traffic Management and Bus Priority Scheme (awarded £6.267 million in January 2004) through the first round of the Growth Areas Fund.

6.45 The project management of the two schemes has been combined as one under the project title of the Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Improvements Project. It is a very good example of successful partnership working bringing together the MKP and the Council to deliver major schemes.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - MAJOR SCHEMES – LTP2

6.46 We have prioritised two schemes for delivery in LTP2. However, during the lifetime of LTP2 we will be developing further schemes for submission. The two LTP2 schemes in order of priority are (see Table 6.7 and Map 8): • A421 Dualling from M1 Junction 13 to Milton Keynes, and; • The Bletchley Scheme Table 6.7 Major Schemes Funded Through LTP2

Cost LTP2 LTP2 schemes in Source of £0.000 Status priority order funding million 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 LTP - MKC £16.026 £0.000 £0.870 £0.680 £6.964 £7.512 1. A421 DUALLING LTP - BCC £10.150 £0.000 £0.640 £0.510 £4.500 £4.500 Submitted FROM M1 J13 TO spring 2006. MK PO £6.824 £0.000 £0.390 £0.310 £3.036 £3.088 TOTAL £33.000 £0.000 £1.900 £1.500 £14.500 £15.100

LTP £9.250 £0.520 £4.725 £4.005 - - Awaiting 2. BLETCHLEY PO £0.457 £0.457 - - - - Ministerial SCHEME TOTAL £9.707 £0.977 £4.725 £4.005 - - decision. Key: LTP MKC = Local Transport Plan Milton Keynes Council PO = Planning Obligations LTP BCC = Local Transport Plan Bedfordshire County Council

110 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 A421 Dualling from M1 Junction 13 to Milton Keynes 6.47 The A421 is currently identified as having significant problems in terms of road safety and congestion. This is forecast to worsen as both natural traffic growth and wider Milton Keynes growth increase the pressure on the route.

6.48 Improvements to the A421 east of the M1 from Junction 13 to Bedford are being taken forward by the Highways Agency (HA) in their Targeted Programme of Improvements. The HA are also widening the M1 from Junction 6 to Junction 13 as well as improving Junction 13. These projects are planned for completion by 2011.

6.49 The Secretary of State for Transport in 2003 recommended that the local highway authority via the LTP process should improve the A421 between Junction 13 and Kingston as identified in the London to South Midlands Multi Modal Study. It is also in the Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Investment Framework of the Regional Transport Strategy (RPG9). In response, we, jointly with Bedfordshire County Council and MKP, have submitted a major scheme business case for LTP2 funding.

6.50 The initial stages of the process required the identification of a preferred route. Two feasible options were developed, a southern route linking M1 Junction 13 to H10 (Option 1), and one along the current alignment (Option 2).

6.51 Local consultation took place in summer 2005. Local exhibitions were held in Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire, and the scheme was presented to the Council’s Sustainable Transport and Road Safety Forum (STARS). The local consultation responses were overwhelming against Option 1, with overwhelming support for Option 2.

6.52 The cost of the scheme is £33.07 million at 2005 prices. The forecast impacts of the scheme include benefits to journey and vehicle operating costs in the form of reduced levels of congestion and delay. Further benefits are forecasted in terms of safety and accident reduction. The Net Present Value (NPV) of the scheme is £22 million with a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.9.

The Bletchley Scheme 6.53 The Bletchley Link (as it was originally described), which was ‘provisional accepted’ for funding as a LTP1 scheme, was developed to the detailed design stage between July and December 2004. This included a detailed assessment of the design and engineering requirements of the bridge link across the West Coast Main Line (WCML). The process also included further extensive local consultation.

6.54 The costs of the scheme were reviewed as part of the detailed design assessment. The estimated cost of the scheme had risen from £13.5 million to around £36 million. This new estimate was based on the most recent DfT guidance on major scheme costs including optimism bias, and on revised Network Rail requirements particularly the cost of track possessions.

6.55 Public consultation demonstrated an overwhelming lack of local support for the bridge element of the scheme. More than 85 percent of over 700 respondents did not support the proposal for the bridge link. However, support was given to other scheme components that relieved local congestion, improved public transport and provided safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle facilities.

111 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 6.56 We responded positively to the views of the local community and, following DfT guidance on addressing progress on schemes where cost changes were an issue, we worked with them to address the lack of local support and provide a solution that achieved the same objectives as the original scheme. The broad scheme objectives therefore remain the same, that is: • To encourage and support regeneration in and around Bletchley; and • To improve bus operation and use in and around Bletchley. 6.57 These objectives will be achieved by: • Improving bus journey times and reliability; • Creating a quality experience for bus users; • Resolving congestion, which currently impacts on bus operation; • Extending the Redway network; and • Creating regeneration (development) opportunities within the area. 6.58 One of our corporate priorities is to improve public transport. Since our original bid we have adopted a long term public transport vision including the initial development of two bus corridors: east to west serving major expansion areas and north to south, with Bletchley a key centre in the south. The scheme will also complement the CMK Public Transport Improvements Project.

6.59 The scheme has been developed in partnership with the Bletchley Development Board, which represents the local town councils, business and community interests. The Board fully supports the scheme.

6.60 The major scheme business case for the Bletchley Scheme highlights the forecast outcomes of the scheme. Notably, it improves the operation of key junctions in the area for all traffic, reducing congestion (delay) by 13 percent. This reduction is gained even with the additional development planned for the area.

6.61 The scheme also provides approximately 2 kilometres of new Redway, providing links into the centre of Bletchley and crossing under the WCML into the main residential area of . Four junctions will include controlled pedestrian crossing facilities.

6.62 Bus journey times to key destinations will improve, particularly from the most deprived areas of Bletchley, as a result of the scheme. There is a 5 percent reduction in journey time to the Milton Keynes General Hospital and a similar benefit to CMK. Journey times from these key areas reduce by around 10 percent to Central Bletchley. The key areas (Lakes Estate, Beanhill, Coffee Hall and Netherfield) have an estimated 3,300 people without access to a car. The population of these areas will be within 250 metres of the improvement public transport corridor. Our accessibility strategy identifies these wards as having the highest level of deprivation and the lowest level of car ownership.

6.63 The scheme will contribute to our objective of increasing public transport modal share from its current level of 4 percent to a more than doubling its share in the long run.

112 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 6.64 This lower cost alternative scheme to the original proposal was submitted to DfT at the end of July 2005. A ministerial decision on funding will be made in spring 2006.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - COMMITTED SCHEMES – SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLAN

6.65 The Sustainable Communities Plan, published in 2003, is committed to delivering an additional 200,000 homes above existing plans by 2016. Funding from the Growth Areas Fund (GAF) and the Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) has been made available to ensure that the right infrastructure is in place in those areas contributing to this housing commitment.

6.66 In partnership with MKP, we have been successful with three bids, which cover the period from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2008. Details of the three schemes are found in Table 6.8 and Map 8, followed by broad descriptions.

Table 6.8 Committed Schemes Funded by the Sustainable Communities Plan

Cost Source of Scheme £0.000 2006-07 2007-08 Status funding million CIF £24.000 £12.000 £12.000 Milton Keynes Central Rail Station Network Rail £85.000 N/A N/A Committed (including Wolverton Station) PO £6.000 N/A N/A TOTAL £115.000 £12.000 £12.000

M1 Junction 14 Area Improvements CIF £8.420 £4.200 £4.200 (improvements to M1 J14, P&R and PO £2.500 £1.250 £1.250 Committed Coachway access) TOTAL £10.920 £5.450 £5.450

GAF £3.000 £1.000 £2.000 MK Public Transport (linking Eastern EA, PO £2.000 £0.500 £1.500 Committed Western EA, CMK & MK General Hospital) TOTAL £5.000 £1.500 £3.500

Key: CIF = Community Infrastructure Fund EA = Expansion Area GAF = Growth Areas Fund CMK = Central Milton Keynes PO = Planning Obligations N/A = Not Available

Milton Keynes Central Rail Station 6.67 This bid was submitted to Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) in November 2005 for CIF funding. The bid was developed in partnership with MKP, and in close liaison with Network Rail and other key stakeholders, including the existing rail operators.

6.68 The main features of the scheme are: • Rail infrastructure enhancements at Milton Keynes Central and Wolverton stations; and • Enhanced passenger facilities at Wolverton station. 6.69 The main objective is to provide the flexibility and capacity to increase public transport trips by rail to and from London, the and . Improving public transport accessibility should ensure that housing

113 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 delivery would be accelerated with more certainty. This scheme identifies 7,600 dwellings that would benefit from the scheme, either directly or indirectly, through accelerated housing delivery.

6.70 The scheme also delivers improvements in terms of rail operation with an estimated increase in trains of 30 (195 in the ‘do something’ compared to 165 in the ‘do minimum’ scenario). In terms of passenger numbers the additional trains can provide for up to an additional 13,440 passengers per day. The Present Value of Benefits of the scheme, measured in changes in travel time, journey quality and accidents are over £400 million, giving an overall Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.95

M1 Junction 14 Area Improvements 6.71 We submitted this bid to the ODPM in July 2005 for funding from CIF. The bid was developed in partnership with MKP and in close liaison with the Highways Agency and other key stakeholders, including MK Metro, the main local bus operator, and National Express.

6.72 The main features of the scheme are: • Enhancements to the bus interchange at the Coachway, • Improving Park & Ride facilities at the Coachway, • Upgrade of M1 Junction 14, and • Improvements to the local highway network. 6.73 The main objectives are to improve public transport accessibility and reduce congestion at this gateway location thereby ensuring that housing delivery can be accelerated with more certainty.

6.74 Assessments show that traffic and movement generated by 13,600 dwellings, and associated development, related to the Eastern Expansion Area, CMK (including Campbell Park), Oakgrove and the Northern Expansion Area could be accommodated by this scheme. Without it, there is doubt as to whether the area could be developed as required by local and regional development plans.

6.75 In operational terms, the improvements demonstrate a 13 percent reduction in delay in the morning peak in 2016 even with the additional 13,600 dwellings. The evening peak shows a 24 percent improvement in delays over the ‘do minimum’ situation. Whilst this benefits all road users, public transport, enjoys additional benefits by having dedicated access into the improved Coachway and Park & Ride site, which are also features of the scheme.

Milton Keynes Public Transport Infrastructure Improvements 6.76 We submitted this bid to the ODPM in November 2005 as part of the second round of funding from the Growth Areas Fund (GAF). The bid was developed in partnership with MKP. The aim of the scheme is to provide a high quality and reliable priority bus route from the eastern and western expansion areas to Central Milton Keynes and to the Milton Keynes General Hospital.

114 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 6.77 The main objectives are to improve bus reliability and provide an alternative to the car from and to the expansion areas, thereby supporting accelerated housing delivery. It will contribute to the overall aim of increasing public transport modal share in MK from its current level of 4 percent to a more than doubling in the long run. Additionally, the scheme will assist in reducing congestion and delay for all road users. There will also be safety benefits.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - MKP TRANSPORT DELIVERY PLAN 2006-2011

6.78 The MKP five year delivery plan for transport aims to provide a comprehensive picture of local and strategic infrastructure needed to support the growth of Milton Keynes. The Delivery Plan will be further developed and supporting processes strengthened before it forms part of the MKPC’s annual Business Planning process in March 2006.

6.79 The projects in the delivery plan have been compiled in consultation with all the potential delivery agencies in Milton Keynes including the Highways Agency and DfT-Rail. Co-ordination will be maintained and enhanced via representation on the Joint Transport Delivery Team (JTDT). The Delivery Plan is a living document and is flexible to reflect changing market conditions, funding availability and the potential introduction of the Planning Gain Supplement.

6.80 A major source of funding for the transport infrastructure will be through the Milton Keynes tariff. The tariff seeks to maximise infrastructure provision (not just for transport), whilst minimising Section 106 negotiations and securing developers’ and landowners’ contributions. The model proposes a cash contribution from the developers/landowners of £18,500 per dwelling on 15,000 homes to be built by 2016. A further £33.46 million will be contributed from employment development to support the requisite infrastructure.

6.81 These figures are additional to further developers’ contributions of substantial free land and works in kind and affordable housing quotas. The total contribution is approximately 75 percent of the total cost of infrastructure (not just transport) directly related to the development. The tariff will underpin the sustainable growth of Milton Keynes.

Preparing for Growth 6.82 In partnership with MKP, we have undertaken a review of the public transport and highway requirements up to 2016 to accommodate future growth. Table 6.9 below and Map 9 gives an indication of what infrastructure might be provided and the capital cost of the infrastructure. However, it excludes a number of schemes that appear in MKP Transport Delivery Plan 2006-2011. It excludes: • Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Improvements Project, • Any schemes listed in Tables 6.7 and 6.8, • A small number of future schemes that could be tariff funded, • A small number of partner schemes not funded by the tariff, and, • Committed schemes of the Highways Agency and Buckinghamshire County Council.

115 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Table 6.9 Abridged MKP Transport Delivery Programme

Capital costs £ Transport Projects millions

Milton Keynes ‘Diameter Route’ Bus Infrastructure £11.00 Public Transport Subsidy and Patronage Scheme £15.00 CMK Public Transport and Highway Junction Improvements £8.55 A421 Corridor Public Transport and Highway Junction Improvements £4.20 A422 - Corridor Public Transport and Highway Junction Improvements £4.20 Western Flank Public Transport and Junction Improvements £8.60 Other Public Transport and Highway Junction Improvements £9.40 A5 Junction Improvements £5.10 Park & Ride (Denbigh North and Eastern Expansion Area) £4.80 A428 Lavendon Bypass £8.00 A509 Olney Bypass £30.00 TOTAL TOTAL £108.85

6.83 The outcomes from work of the JTDT will feed into the LTP2 implementation plan. Other schemes may appear on the list over time as well as existing proposals dropping off the list. The source of funding for the proposals will also have to be agreed over time. The main sources to be considered include: • DfT funding through the LTP process and the Transport Innovation Fund; • ODPM funding through GAF/CIF bids and growth area development grant; • Other government agencies, for example the Highways Agency; • Developer contributions including the tariff; and • Public transport operators.

SCHEMES IDENTIFIED BY OTHER DELIVERY BODIES

6.84 There are other major transport schemes are that will be promoted through the life of LTP2 by other delivery agencies. Additional schemes, identified for delivery by other agencies, are listed in Table 3.5. They cover the LTP2 period and beyond.

East West Rail 6.85 We are the secretariat for the East West Rail Consortium, which promotes the East West Rail Project. The Consortium is made up of 35 local authorities together with the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA), the South East England and East of England Development Agencies (SEEDA and EEDA).

6.86 The ODPM is presently funding a study to evaluate land use/transportation options for the Oxford to Bedford route as well as the Aylesbury to Milton Keynes spur. This study will establish potential funding sources for the scheme. The scheme is identified in the Regional Transport Strategy for delivery in the period of LTP2

6.87 One proposal that could be considered in the life of LTP2, is the restructuring of Bletchley Station so that the station entrance is repositioned to face the town centre and its relocated bus station. This scheme would support both the East West Rail and the Bletchley Scheme.

116 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 THE ACCESSIBILITY ACTION PLAN

6.88 The interventions and opportunities that were described in the Accessibility Strategy (see Annex A) have been used to prepare a series of Action Plans to improve access by walking, cycling and public transport, to health, education, work and food shops. These Action Plans will be delivered over the lifetime of LTP2.

6.89 The measures that have emerged from the development of the strategy are categorised according to the service that will benefit most from their introduction. We have identified the key stakeholders that will assist with the development and implementation of the actions. It is essential that stakeholders are closely involved in executing the Action Plans so that they can provide a much needed reality check to ensure that the actions are feasible and achievable.

6.90 The accessibility strategy has been developed with our partners, and we will continue to develop the strategy to understand these issues in more depth, with the aim of continually reviewing and updating the Action Plan. One of the objectives is to provide, as far as reasonable, a level of accessibility that gives all residents equal opportunities to access good quality services.

6.91 Some of the actions can be considered as ‘quick wins’, as they require interventions for which there are few barriers to implementation and because they can be delivered in the short-term.

6.92 The actions include both transport and non-transport solutions and although aimed specifically to improve accessibility, many of the initiatives also provide positive outcomes for other LTP priorities.

Above Image: Avebury Boulevard Bus Interchange, Central Milton Keynes

117 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Access by Public and Community Transport 6.93 The interventions and opportunities that will provide improvements for accessibility by public and community transport are listed as follows:

Action Outcome Delivery Delivery Partner Period

AP1 Delivery of CMK improvements, • Reduction in bus journey times 2006-2008 Milton Keynes including: • Increased reliability Partnership, MK • Bus priority measures • Improved Quality of journeys journey Metro • Stop improvements • Increased patronage • RTPI • Increased access to bus stops • Bus interchange • Better bus stop environment AP2 Deliver Growth Area public transport • Higher frequency services along new 2006-2011 Milton Keynes initiatives, including: bus route corridors Partnership, bus • New routes • Reduction in bus journey times operators • Bus priority • Increased reliability • Travel information • Improved Quality of journeys journey • Bus fleet mobility improvements • Increased patronage • Stop improvements • Increased access to bus stops • Better bus stop environment AP3 Increase the number of young people • Provide greater independence in terms 2006-2007 Youth Council joining the Concessionary Fares Scheme of accessibility for young people AP4 Concessionary travel – introduce free off- • Increased patronage for over 60’s 2006 Bus operators peak travel for over 60’s • Increased opportunities for shopping, leisure and access to health facilities AP5 Develop the existing plans for improving • Increased accessibility for residents in 2006-2008 Age Concern, community transport services, including: rural areas (particularly those in ‘at-risk’ Ealing Community • Revised & improved Fastchair service groups) Transport, Taxi • Improving community taxi services operators • Introducing an assisted travel booking service

AP6 Introduction of planned rural transport • Greater provision of affordable travel for 2006-2007 Youth services services, including: 12-17yr olds in rural areas • Rural bus services • Increased access for travel to shops • Taxi bus service and leisure facilities (particularly for the • Youth bus elderly)

Access by Walking and Cycling 6.94 The interventions and opportunities that will provide improvements for accessibility by walking and cycling are listed as follows:

Action Outcome Delivery Delivery Partner Period

AP7 Delivery of CMK Cycling Strategy • Increase the number of people that walk 2006-2011 Cycling Forum proposals, including: and cycle • Increased awareness • Increase safety for pedestrians and • Greater publicity and information on cyclists cycling routes • Raised profile of cycling in MK • Increased safety on Redways • Increase number of people that walk • Introduction of new cycling routes and cycle to CMK from areas adjacent • Increased cycle priority at crossing to Super Redways and junctions • Introduction of ‘Super Redways’

118 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Access to Health 6.95 The interventions and opportunities that will provide improvements for accessibility to health facilities are listed as follows:

Action Outcome Delivery Delivery Partner Period

AP8 Delivery of public transport and • Increased bus patronage to MK General 2006-2008 Milton Keynes walk/cycling improvements at MK hospital Partnership, Milton General Hospital, including: • Reduction in journey time to the hospital Keynes Primary • Improved bus stop waiting area by bus and increased reliability Care Trust • New pedestrian crossing • Reduction in severance for pedestrian • Improvements to subways access from Netherfield and Peartree • Removal of speed humps Bridge • New routes to serve the hospital • Increased safety of walking and cycling to the hospital • Reduction in number of work journeys made by car • Reduction in number of hospital appointments missed AP9 Expansion of MKPCT ‘choose and book’ • Greater choice for specialist treatment 2006-2008 Milton Keynes system • Reduction in journey time to access Primary Care Trust specialist care • Reduction in number of appointments missed AP10 Delivery of actions using additional • Reduction in number of trips made to 2006-2011 Milton Keynes funding that has been allocated for: hospitals Primary Care Trust • • Assistance for travel to specialist Increase in treatment given locally services • Reduced risk of accessibility problems • Early introduction of GPs in expansion for access to GPs in expansion areas areas • Increased training for GPs

Access to Work 6.96 The interventions and opportunities that will provide improvements for accessibility to work are listed as follows:

Action Outcome Delivery Delivery Partner Period

AP15 Embed accessibility planning in • Reduce the need to travel to work 2006-2011 Developers development planning process, develop • Reduce work journey trip length standardised methodology for • Increase the number of journeys made accessibility analysis. Initially apply for by sustainable modes of travel growth areas

AP16 Deliver improvements for public • More employees encouraged to walk, 2006-2011 Milton Keynes transport, walking and cycling around the cycle or use public transport to travel to Primary Care Trust MK General Hospital site work

119 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Access to Food Shops 6.97 The interventions and opportunities that will provide improvements for accessibility to food shops are listed as follows:

Action Outcome Delivery Delivery Partner Period

AP17 In planning new development, and for • Increase number of people that receive 2006-2011 Developers regeneration, ensure adequate land-use a better diet through the provision of provisions made for locating food shops more convenient and affordable fresh food shops

Access for Disadvantaged Communities 6.98 The interventions and opportunities that will provide improvements for accessibility for people in disadvantaged communities are listed as follows:

Action Outcome Delivery Delivery Partner Period

AP18 Deliver planned improvements to the • Increased accessibility to services by 2006-2011 Cycling Forum Redway network and introduce the walking and cycling from deprived proposed Super Redways areas, which include Beanhill, Coffee Hall and Netherfield AP19 ‘Design Out Crime’ through building new • Improve safety for walking and cycling 2006-2007 Community Safety facilities in targeted deprived areas Partnership

AP20 Deliver CMK and Growth Area public • Increase accessibility by public 2006-2008 Milton Keynes transport improvements transport to CMK and key service from Partnership deprived areas, which include Beanhill,

Coffee Hall and Netherfield AP21 Continue to develop the LMCS project in • Increase number of trips by walking, 2006-2008 Community Safety Woughton cycling and bus (due to improvements Partnership in safety and security)

AP22 Deliver SIHI proposals for deprived areas • Increase local training and job 2006-2010 SIHP programme (including Beanhill, Coffee Hall and opportunities board. Netherfield) • Increase access to community and health facilities • Reduction in severance

DELIVERING THE PROGRAMME

Performance Management

6.99 However well thought out a strategy is, it can only be realised if the means of delivery are equally well thought through. The recent Audit Commission Inspection Report of Environmental Services23 indicates that the general performance has

23 Audit Commission Inspection Report of Milton Keynes Council Environment Services May 2005.

120 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 improved significantly with Environment Services "providing a good service with promising prospects for improvement". Furthermore the report highlighted the fact that "the council has effective performance management systems." In particular the Audit Commission was impressed by the mechanism by which the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) was made aware of issues in a particular area on a monthly basis.

6.100 We will improve the CLT performance management arrangements by including key transport targets and indicators such as bus patronage and road casualty figures in the Council’s ‘Basket of Key Indicators’. They will be discussed by CLT on a monthly basis, and then reported to Cabinet on a quarterly basis.

6.101 However, all transport targets and indicators will be monitored on a monthly basis and reported at monthly Transport Managers team meetings. We will continue to submit the Annual Monitoring Report to Cabinet irrespective of whether we have to report to the DfT.

6.102 Nonetheless, it is recognised that there is still room for improvement in the delivery of transport services. We are now applying the good practice from other areas of the Environment Directorate to the delivery of transport services. However, the main vehicle, which has been set up in order to achieve delivery growth, is the Joint Transport Delivery Team (JTDT).

Joint Transport Delivery Team – Performance Management 6.103 In partnership with MKP, we have a mutual interest in ensuring that transport- related policies and strategies are aligned to the delivery of their respective plans and targets. As the pace of development increases more resources are needed. Consequently the Joint Transport Delivery Team was set up. This comprises of a small core team of officers, chaired by the Council’s Corporate Director for the Environment supported by senior officers from the Council and MKP, plus representatives from government departments and its agencies such as the Highways Agency.

6.104 The JTDT fulfils the following five functions: • Co-ordinates the transport strategy for MK, facilitating sustainable growth, and to provide the basis for resolving transportation and highways issues; • Develops an implementation strategy using all the available funding sources; • Makes recommendations to the Council’s Cabinet and MKP Committee, and informs and advises the related partnerships in particular the MK Transport Partnership; • Ensures major projects are efficiently and effectively co-ordinated, planned, procured and delivered achieving ‘Value for Money’; and • Ongoing monitoring of project planning and implementation as well as and dissemination of "lessons to be learnt". 6.105 Thus the JTDT provides better organisation, jointly agreed processes and the management of risk during a period of significant change to deliver the required outputs. The implementation programme is based upon a comprehensive assessment of the strategic transport requirements to deliver sustainable growth

121 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 within the resources available. It is worth reiterating that the JTDT will continue to seek out any opportunities to enhance delivery.

6.106 The JTDT is reviewing modern procurement trends and best practice in order to provide value for money when delivering large transport investment programmes. Discussions have been held with a government efficiency programme co-ordinator, 4P’s and the Highway Agency to ensure regional and cross cutting approaches are reviewed. This work will be completed in 2006.

VALUE FOR MONEY

6.107 Ultimately, value for money needs to be right at the centre of the whole transport planning process. Value for money is about making sure that resources are allocated appropriately in order to achieve objectives. This can only be achieved if there is a clear link from objectives through to the design of and the implementation of the delivery programme.

Integrated Transport and Maintenance Blocks - Value for Money 6.108 Resources are allocated to schemes after going through agreed procedures adopted over time. For example, local safety schemes are based on historic casualty records, and compare the forecast savings in casualties (based on Highways Economic Note 1) with the cost of the scheme. The value for money is then expressed as the first year rate of return.

6.109 There will be a change in emphasis to focus delivery on LTP2 targets and objectives as well as corporate priorities. A draft traffic and transport scheme assessment methodology has been developed. The next stage will be to present the methodology to the Sustainable Transport and Road Safety Forum (STARS) in spring 2006. When adopted, it will ensure that all schemes contribute to LTP2 targets and objectives and secure value for money.

Joint Transport Delivery Team - Value for Money 6.110 In order to achieve this the JTDT is in regular communication with the bodies that helped form the strategy itself. This ongoing communication is particularly important in a fast changing environment such as Milton Keynes where new challenges and opportunities arise constantly. The JTDT is responsible for ensuring that once resources have been appropriately allocated (that is in accordance with the implementation plan), they are used in the most efficient way possible.

Major Schemes - Value for Money 6.111 Table 6.10 illustrates the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of our major schemes with delivery planned during the lifetime of our LTP2. The BCR is the value most commonly used to measure the relative value of a scheme in terms of benefits as a ratio to cost. The benefits are measured as savings to journey times and journey costs. Commonly accepted interpretations of the BCR value suggest that a scheme with a value of 0 to 0.75 is a very poor return on investment. Schemes with a BCR of between 0.75 and 1 is a poor return, 1.0 to 3.0 is good and above 3.0 represents a very good return on investment.

122 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Table 6.10 Major Scheme Benefit to Cost Ratios

Scheme BCR AST Cost Rating

CMK Public Transport Access Improvements (LTP1) 14.1 Yes £5.8 V Good A421 Dualling from M1 Junction 13 to MK (LTP2) 1.9 Yes £33m Good Bletchley Scheme (LTP2) 3.8 Yes £9.4m V Good M1 Junction 14 Area Improvements (CIF) 3.0 Yes £10.9m V Good Fox Milne – part of MK Public Transport 7.8 Partial* £2.0m V Good Infrastructure Improvements (GAF) Pineham – part of MK Public Transport Infrastructure 4.1 Partial* £2.0m V Good Improvements (GAF) Milton Keynes Central Rail Station (CIF) 11.3 Yes £115m V Good

(* Partial AST produced only due to capital cost below threshold)

6.112 The appraisal of our schemes are summarised in an Appraisal Summary Table, or AST. ASTs were developed as part of the New Approach To Appraisal (NATA) and are required to accompany major schemes with a capital cost in excess of £5m. The ASTs cover the impact of schemes in terms of five government-set objectives, (Environment, Economy, Safety, Accessibility and Integration).

6.113 The ASTs for each individual scheme reports in detail on a comprehensive set of sub-objectives and provides a one-page summary of the overall impact of the scheme. The AST are included with the individual scheme appraisals (but do not form part of this LTP).

6.114 As a growth area Milton Keynes will require significant additional investment in its transport networks. Thus we have submitted bids for three major schemes as part of the LTP process, including LTP1 and LTP2. They address the need to improve public transport and reduce the impact of the increasing congestion. The three GAF and CIF schemes have been accepted for funding and will be delivered by March 2008.

6.115 We will only be taking forward major schemes that provide excellent value for money and, as can be seen from the table above, all (bar one) have very good Benefit Cost Ratios. Even the lowest ranked scheme, the A421 Dualling, gives a good outcome and will, of course, have significant benefits for our neighbours in Bedfordshire and to the wider national strategic network. The BCR for the A421 Dualling is slightly lower than for the other schemes due to the relatively higher cost involved.

123 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

124 Section 6 – The Implementation Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 7. TARGETS AND INDICATORS

WHY DO WE NEED TARGETS AND INDICATORS?

Monitoring Progress 7.1 There is a direct link between this section and the preceding ones. Our long term vision for the future of transport in Milton Keynes has shaped our transport objectives, which in turn has resulted in a prioritised programme of schemes. In order to ensure we are delivering an appropriate programme of schemes so that all our objectives are met, we need relevant indicators and targets so that progress can be monitored effectively.

7.2 Over the next five years we will implement the measures set out in our programme. It is important that we measure progress against the objectives, so that we can see where we are making good progress and where we may need to make changes to our approach. Progress will be reported to the DfT in delivery reports.

7.3 Our performance management process will ensure that our indicators and targets: • Reflect our aims and objectives; • Are realistic but challenging; • Are regularly reviewed; • Include an assessment of the risks involved in meeting the targets; and • Are cost-effective in collecting data.

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS SINCE LTP1

7.4 We have made significant progress towards meeting the objectives in the first LTP: • Mode share: bus use has risen by 10 percent from 6.4 million journeys in 2000-01 to 7 million in 2004-05. • Road safety: the number of people killed or seriously injured (on Council controlled roads) has reduced by 46 percent (between the 1994-98 average and 2004). We have also cut the number of children killed or seriously injured by 42 percent. • Congestion: the CARSHAREMK scheme has attracted over 2,000 members, with over 80 percent of the priority parking spaces in Central Milton Keynes used. • Cycling: new cycle routes built from Olney and Woburn Sands to the City, and between the Lakes Estate and Bletchley, and new cycle facilities outside Milton Keynes Central rail station and other locations. The number of cycles parked in CMK has increased by over 20 percent.

125 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 7.5 Figure 7.1 shows how monitoring is linked to the wider Local Transport Plan process, and illustrates how modifications can be made to the strategy and programme as a result of the monitoring process.

Figure 7.1 How Monitoring is Linked to the Wider Local Transport Plan Process

VISION

OBJECTIVES

STRATEGY

PROGRAMME

DELIVERY REVIEW / MODIFY

OUTCOMES

MONITORING

7.6 The targets in this Section are based on our transport objectives, relating to: • Improving accessibility and public transport; • Improving safety; • Reducing congestion; • Improving air quality; • Improving maintenance; • Improving the quality of life; • Encouraging sustainable growth; and • Encouraging modal shift. Station Square, Central Milton Keynes 7.7 Table 7.1 shows how our SITS objectives support national and regional priorities, as well as also showing the indicators used to monitor progress.

126 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 7.1 Summary of SITS Objectives and Indicators Shown Against the Shared Priorities

National and Regional SITS Objectives Indicators Priorities Accessibility all people should be able to move around Accessibility conveniently Road conditions to encourage walking, cycling, and quality public Cycling transport Bus patronage helping people to travel when and where they want, Bus satisfaction but in more environmentally friendly ways Journey to school mode share Bus punctuality Community transport usage Bus patronage (contracted services) Street lighting Road Safety all people should be able to move around safely Road casualties reducing journeys by car Road condition Street lighting Congestion we will actively seek to reduce the number, length Congestion and need to make journeys Traffic flow to encourage walking, cycling, and quality public Road traffic kilometres transport Journey to school mode share reducing journeys by car Bus patronage Cycling Air quality we will actively seek to reduce the number, length Air Quality and need to make journeys Road traffic kilometres to encourage walking, cycling, and quality public Bus patronage transport Footway condition reducing journeys by car Congestion helping people to travel when and where they want, Journey to school mode share but in more environmentally friendly ways. Cycling Traffic flow Quality of Life all people should be able to move around Road condition conveniently Road casualties to encourage walking, cycling, and quality public Bus patronage transport Bus satisfaction promoting a healthier lifestyle Footway condition Cycling Journey to school mode share Air Quality Congestion Bus punctuality Traffic flow Community transport usage Bus patronage (contracted services) Street lighting

Indicators 7.8 Further details of the Targets and Performance Indicators referred to in this Section are set out in Tables 7.2 and 7.3. These tables include information on the indicators and targets used, our methods of monitoring and the risks to their successful achievement. Our targets are SMART (Stretching, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely).

7.9 The indicators are used to measure progress and set targets. They are a combination of mandatory indicators set by the Government, and local indicators we have set.

127 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 7.10 The mandatory indicators include Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) that are used to measure the efficiency of local government. In addition, there are a number of mandatory LTP indicators that we are advised to use. Although indicators LTP6 (changes to peak period traffic flows to urban centres) and LTP9 (Air Quality) are not mandatory for Milton Keynes, we have decided to adopt targets. We will also develop a target for LTP7 (Congestion), which is not mandatory for us, and include it in our first LTP2 delivery report. The local performance indicators have been set to measure progress towards objectives at a more local level.

7.11 In selecting the indicators, care has been taken to ensure that: • The indicators are explicitly linked to objectives; • The outcomes are largely within Council control; and • Data is readily available and monitoring is cost-effective.

Targets and Trajectories 7.12 The targets we have set to deliver the implementation plan are challenging but achievable. The key targets are set for the end of the LTP2 period, 2010-11. Where possible, the year of the baseline is set by DfT guidance.

7.13 We have also set targets to cover the intervening years. The setting of these ‘trajectories’ allows us to monitor progress over time. The trajectory describes how the eventual target will be achieved in the years up to 2010-11.

7.14 The targets and trajectories are based on: • A full understanding of the baseline position; • Progress made during the first LTP period, experiences and lessons learned; • Knowledge of wider trends (including the growth agenda); • Funding availability; • Analysis of the predicted outcomes using the Milton Keynes Multi-Modal Model; and • LTP guidance and minimum national targets.

Monitoring Programme 7.15 The monitoring programme sets out how data will be collected in order to monitor progress against each indicator. We will ensure that data used for monitoring is robust and consistent with technical methodological guidance.

7.16 The monitoring programme also includes details of generic and specific risks, and how these will be managed.

7.17 Targets and trajectories will be constantly monitored. If there is evidence that we are exceeding our , we will consider stretching them as part of the delivery reporting process, to ensure they remain challenging.

128 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN BENCHMARKING GROUP

7.18 The Local Transport Plan Benchmarking Group was set up in response to advice in the guidance on the first round of APRs. It was established in 2002 to undertake a continuous process of comparison, review and search for best and better practice within the group.

7.19 The group consists of Peterborough, Swindon, & Wrekin, , and the Council. We are all in the same ‘family’ of unitary authorities for Best Value purposes so can be considered as good comparators. The group has the added bonus of having a geographical spread covering five different Government Office regions.

7.20 A paper, ‘Successful participation methods for local transport planning’, was published in the Municipal Engineer in March 2005. This paper attempts to identify successful participation strategies and techniques used within the benchmarking group that could be deployed by other local authorities in support of the development of their second Local Transport Plan (LTP2).

7.21 The paper acknowledged that for a transport plan to be successful it requires high- quality public participation and information-gathering techniques to be used to ensure that, as far as practical, the plan meets local problems and needs.

7.22 In developing the targets and indicators for this LTP we have applied the lessons leant from our own experience and that of our partners in the Benchmarking Group.

129 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 7.2 LTP2 Indicators

Indicator Description Monitoring method

• BVPI 99 (x) Road casualties (KSI): people killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions. Casualty data provided by Thames • Valley Police. Reporting of child BVPI 99 Road Casualties BVPI 99 (y) Road casualties (children): casualties based on three year rolling number of children (aged under 16 years) killed averages due to small number of or seriously injured in road traffic collisions. casualties • BVPI 99 (z) Road casualties (slight injuries): number of slight injuries reported for all ages. Passenger journeys on buses: number of local bus Combination of ticket machine data and BVPI 102 Public Transport passenger journeys originating in the authority area own manual surveys undertaken each year. Bus satisfaction: percentage of respondents, to user ODPM/NOP Survey - percentage of BVPI 104 Bus Satisfaction satisfaction survey, satisfied with the local bus service. users satisfied with local bus information

• BVPI 187 Condition of surface footway: Percentage of the category 1, 1a and 2 footway network where structural maintenance should be considered.

• BVPI 223 Condition of principal roads: percentage of the local authority principal road network where structural maintenance should BVPI 187,223,224 Road and be considered. TRACS type survey (TTS) Footway Condition • BVPI 224(a) Condition of non-principal classified roads: percentage of the non- principal classified road network where maintenance should be considered.

• BVPI 224(b) Condition of unclassified roads: percentage of the unclassified road network where maintenance should be considered. Accessibility indicator(s): to be defined (see below). LTP1 Accessibility From the Accessibility Strategy

Area wide road traffic kilometres: change in area LTP2 Area-wide road traffic flows wide vehicle kilometres since previous year (excluding National Traffic Census (if available) trunk roads). Cycling trips (annualised index): number of cyclists. CMK Cycle parking surveys / Cycle LTP3 Cycling trips cordon surveys LTP4 Mode share of journeys to Mode share of journeys to school: usual mode of School surveys school travel to school for 5 to 16 year olds. Bus punctuality: percentage of services departing in LTP5 and MKC4 Bus punctuality window one minute early to five minutes late (up to 5 Monitored by the Council buses per hour) or excess waiting time (5+ bph). Changes in peak period traffic flows to urban LTP6 Changes in peak period traffic Vehicle Cordon – annual average daily centres: the number of vehicles entering Central Milton flows to urban centres traffic Keynes during the morning peak (07:00-10:00). Congestion (vehicle delay) – not mandatory for Milton LTP7 Congestion (Vehicle Delay) Journey time monitoring Keynes, but will be measured.

Air quality: Annual mean NO2 levels and PM10 levels. 4 automatic air quality monitoring stations – 2 fixed, 2 mobile. In addition, LTP8 Air Quality NO2 is also monitored using diffusion tubes at over 30 locations To increase usage on Community Transport Data from community transport MKC1 Community transport usage operators Road casualty reduction – 50 percent reduction in the Accident data provided by Thames MKC2 Road casualties number of people killed or seriously injured (on MKC Valley Police roads only) MKC3 Bus Patronage on contracted To increase bus use on contracted services by 23 Monitored by the Council services percent

130 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 7.3 LTP2 Targets and Performance Indicators 2006-07 to 2010-11

Evidence that Objective Target Indicator Definition Base Year Value 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 target is realistic Risks but challenging

Our targets include National bus an element of patronage (outside housing growth To increase Total bus London) is falling BVPI 102 2003-04 6.9 million 6.9 m 7.2 m 7.7 m 8.1 m 8.5 m which relies on bus patronage patronage and we have set a others hitting target for rising housing delivery patronage. targets. LTP5 The To improve proportion of A bus punctuality Many aspects are bus buses departing 2002-03 83.7% 84% 85% 86% 88% 90% beyond the control indicator Our QBI routes punctuality 1 minute early to of the Council. It is have a tougher five minutes late therefore important target as our that we maintain MKC4 The interventions are proportion of partnership working To improve A bus punctuality focussed more on buses departing to address if bus indicator on a 2005-06 84% 85% 86% 88% 92% 95% these routes 1 minute early to aspects fall short of punctuality QBI route five minutes late what is expected. Improving on a QBI route Accessibility and Our targets include Public Transport National bus To increase To be an element of patronage (outside bus use on confirmed housing growth Numbers of London) is falling contracted MKC3 2005-06 (data to be 4% 8% 13% 18% 23% which relies on passengers and we have set a services by supplied by others hitting target for rising 23% operators) housing delivery patronage. targets. There should be To improve Target is for top few risks as the Footway the condition BVPI 187 2003-04 22.7% 9.0% 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.2% quartile number of condition of footpaths performance. qualifying routes is relatively small. Our targets include In LTP1 monitoring an element of showed a 25% LTP3 Survey of housing growth To increase increase in cycling. Cycling trips parked cycles in 2003 266 300 350 420 510 600 which relies on cycling trips We have adopted a CMK others hitting 100% increase for housing delivery LTP2. targets.

131 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 7.3 LTP2 Targets and Performance Indicators 2006-07 to 2010-11

Evidence that Objective Target Indicator Definition Base Year Value 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 target is realistic Risks but challenging

We now have a Target relies on Reduce child Mode share of LTP4 Journey to dedicated officer favourable car journeys to journeys to school mode 2004-05 35% 33% 32% 31% 30% 30% and an adopted participation in school to 30% school share plan to implement travel plans from school travel plans schools.

We have redesigned the To increase Services rely on the service and our usage on Number of performance of an MKC1 2004-05 58,200 61,100 67,500 73,900 80,300 87,300 independent study Community (single) trips external transport indicates that a Transport operator. 50% increase is achievable. A 40% We have adopted a reduction in Number of 40% casualty the total casualties BVPI 99(x) - all reduction target number of (including 1994-98 188 143 136 128 121 113 roads against a people killed children) killed or background of or seriously seriously injured projected growth. injured A 50% We have adopted a reduction in 50% casualty Number of We have a Improving Safety the number of BVPI 99(y) - all reduction target children killed or 1994-98 25 18 17 15 14 13 relatively small data children killed roads against a seriously injured set against a or seriously background of pattern of a rising injured projected growth. population. The We have adopted a A 10% small data set may Number of slight 10% casualty reduction in give us variable casualties BVPI 99(z) - all reduction target the number of 1994-98 1,072 1,008 997 986 976 965 results from year to (including roads against a slight year. children) background of casualties projected growth. A 50% We have adopted a Number of reduction in 50% casualty casualties the number of MKC2 - MKC reduction target (including 1994-98 169 118 110 101 93 85 people killed roads only against a children) killed or or seriously background of seriously injured injured projected growth.

132 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 7.3 LTP2 Targets and Performance Indicators 2006-07 to 2010-11

Evidence that Objective Target Indicator Definition Base Year Value 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 target is realistic Risks but challenging

Our target is to We will increase reduce the forecast the provision of LTP6 - Weekday Changes in traffic growth to non-car modes. In vehicle cordon Reducing To reduce car traffic flow to 23,500 14% increase by LTP1 progress was survey of CMK 2003 24,500 25,300 26,000 26,500 26,900 congestion use urban centres vehicles 2010-11, compared consistent for from 7.00am to (am Peak) with the forecast buses but 10.00am rate of population inconsistent for growth of 18%. other modes. The DfT permanent Automatic Traffic To meet 3 Counter south of National Air a) <40 µg/m Within: Target is fixed by Improving air An air quality LTP8 – a) NO 3 3 Olney High St. will Quality 2 2003 b) <40 µg/ m a) 40 µg/m the National Air quality target & b) PM 3 be closely Strategy 10 b) 40 µg/m Quality Strategy. monitored. Growth targets related traffic will impact on this site.

Principal road BVPI 223 2005-06 - To be set when 2005-06 baseline data is set - - condition

To improve Improving the condition maintenance Non-principal of MK's roads classified road BVPI 224a 2005-06 - To be set when 2005-06 baseline data is set - - condition

10.5% Unclassified road BVPI 224b 2003-04 15.98% (stretched 10.50% 10.50% 10.50% 10.50% - - condition from 11.5%) Introduce bus service Bus Bus Outcome from Service delivery from To improve An accessibility No current bus Develop Develop patronage patronage LTP2 consultation relies on LTP1 2005-06 Newport accessibility target services service service trajectory trajectory & Accession cooperation of bus Pagnell to set set suggests demand operator. Improving the MK General quality of life Hospital

To improve Street lighting BVPI 215 a 2005-06 2.86 days To be set after 2005-06 figure is confirmed. - - living streets repair efficiency

133 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

Table 7.3 LTP2 Targets and Performance Indicators 2006-07 to 2010-11

Evidence that Objective Target Indicator Definition Base Year Value 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 target is realistic Risks but challenging

Induced traffic from Our target is to national and reduce the forecast regional schemes 1,590million rate of traffic growth Encouraging Change in local LTP2 DfT's such as the M1 To reduce car vehicle to 14% by 2010-11, sustainable area wide road National Road 2003 1,665 mvk 1,720 mvk 1,770 mvk 1,800 mvk 1,825 mvk widening J6-J13 & use kilometres compared with the growth traffic kilometres Traffic Survey A421 from J13 to (mvk) forecast rate of Bedford could population growth undermine local of 18% interventions. Although starting Many aspects are from a low base, beyond the control with our PT major of the Council. It is To improve Satisfaction with schemes being therefore important satisfaction local bus BVPI 104 2003-04 38% 43% 48% 53% 58% 70% delivered, including that we maintain with local bus services RTPI this should partnership working services have a dramatic to address if improvement in aspects fall short of satisfaction. what is expected.

134 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

MONITORING PROGRAMME

Generic Risks 7.23 Outside influences are constantly changing, and these changes can have a significant effect on how achievable and realistic our transport strategy, objectives and programme are. The purpose of risk assessment is to attempt to identify what these risks may be, and to quantify what effect they may have on our strategy.

7.24 The key risk affecting Milton Keynes is growth. There is a risk that growth may not occur at the same magnitude and/or over the same time period as planned, and this may affect the relevance of our transport strategy and targets. This is a particularly acute problem for the area due to the sheer size of planned growth, and the uncertainties are amply illustrated because recent housing completion rates would result in only around 75 percent of the housing planned for 2011 actually being completed.

7.25 Other generic risks affecting Milton Keynes include: • The economy - a growing economy results in more demand for travel, and vice versa; • Funding - our programme is based on the December 2005 ‘planning guidelines’. If funding changes, we will review and modify our targets accordingly. • Time lag - schemes and programmes take a long time to plan and deliver, during which time the needs of our area may have changed. 7.26 The strategy will be constantly reviewed and monitored to ensure that we are aware of the risks, and that they are managed. Appropriate remedial action will be taken.

Aerial view of the developing area of Broughton

135 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

BVPI 99x, y & z Road Casualties

Indicator Definition Target BVPI99x Number killed or seriously Reduction in total killed or seriously injured injured (KSI) (KSI) from 188 to 113 by 2010-11 (a 40% reduction) Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 94-98 113 188 143 136 128 121 113 Indicator Definition Target BVPI 99y Children killed or seriously Reduction in child (aged less than 16) injured (KSI). KSIs from 25 to 13 by 2010 (a 50% reduction). Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 94-98 13 25 18 17 15 14 13 Indicator Definition Target BVPI 99z Number of slight casualties Reduce number of slight injuries (all ages) by 10% by 2010-11 Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 94-98 965 1,072 1,008 997 986 976 965

National objective Road safety.

Data and monitoring We are using the recommended 1994-1998 baseline for these Best Value indicators. Data provided by Thames Valley Police.

Basis for targets and The number of people killed or seriously injured (on Council controlled roads) trajectories has reduced by 46% between the 1994-98 average and 2004. We have also cut the number of children killed or seriously injured by 42%. The results show we are well on track to meet national road casualty reduction targets, achieved due to our extensive programme of road safety engineering measures, supported by an education, training and publicity programme.

Challenging/ The new targets remain the same as those set out in LTP1, which were based realistic/stretching on the Government’s road casualty targets in 2000. We believe they are challenging and meet the criteria for ‘stretch’ targets as they occur against a backdrop of significant growth within the Milton Keynes area over the next five years and beyond.

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council and Thames Valley Police.

Risks The expected growth in population, together with the relatively small number of total casualties on which to report, means that there are risks inherent in using the data as results may vary significantly from year to year. Child KSI results are particularly prone to annual variation, due to the very small numbers involved. There is also a possible risk that increases in walking and cycling may result in more accidents.

136 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

BVPI 102 Public Transport Patronage

Indicator Definition Target BVPI 102 Bus Patronage Increase bus patronage by 1.6 million annual passenger journeys Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 03-04 8.5m 6.9m 6.9m 7.2m 7.7m 8.1m 8.5m

National objective Congestion and accessibility.

Data and monitoring This indicator uses a combination of operator ticket machine data and our own manual surveys to measure the number of local bus passenger journeys originating in the authority area undertaken each year. We have used a base year of 2003-04 for this indicator, as recommended.

Basis for targets & Bus use has risen from 6.4 million journeys in 2000-01 to 7 million in 2004-05 trajectories (a 10% increase). Our investment in bus infrastructure has improved the operating environment for buses, as well as improving facilities for the passenger. We predict this success will accelerate once the CMK Public Transport Improvements Project has been completed. The CARSHAREMK scheme, set up to promote car sharing, also includes the offer of discounted bus travel.

Challenging/ National figures suggest that bus patronage (outside London) is falling, and realistic/stretching we have set a target for rising patronage. To achieve the target we will be relying on increasing the use of non-car modes. In LTP1 progress was consistent for buses but inconsistent for other modes.

Lead organisation Bus operators and Milton Keynes Council.

Risks The principal risks in the delivery of this target include operators making service cuts or withdrawing services, and delays in the provision of new public transport-related infrastructure. In February 2006, Arriva acquired MK Metro, the largest local bus operator. We will continue to work closely with operators to ensure their continued co-operation in all areas.

For the last two years Milton Keynes has not found funding for on-bus surveyors. This funding is currently considered to be an ‘aspiration’ rather than a necessity. As a result, the value of the public transport use database is being weakened as time goes by. When collecting survey and ticket machine data there is always a risk of operators not co-operating. There may be resistance to supplying local bus ridership figures, as operators may consider the information to be commercially sensitive. It is likely that consent for surveys will be given if surveying is discreet and non-invasive.

137 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

BVPI 104 Satisfaction with Local Bus Services

Indicator Definition Target BVPI 104 Bus Satisfaction Increase the level of satisfaction with local bus services from 38% (2003-04) to 58% (2009-10) and then to 70% Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 03-04 70% 38% 43% 48% 53% 58% 70%

National objective Congestion and accessibility.

Data and monitoring This is measured from a user satisfaction survey showing the percentage of respondents satisfied with the local bus service. The DfT has advised using 2003-04 as the baseline with updated information every three years.

Basis for targets and Delivery of the DfT funded Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Access trajectories Improvement Scheme and EP’s ODPM funded Central Milton Keynes Traffic Management and Bus Priority Scheme taken forward as a single project with a value of over £12 million under the joint title of the Central Milton Keynes Public Transport Improvements Project.

Challenging/ Although starting from a low base, delivery of our public transport major realistic/stretching schemes, which includes RTPI, should result in a dramatic improvement in satisfaction.

Lead organisation Bus operators and Milton Keynes Council.

This indicator is based on the perception of residents at the time the survey is conducted. There is a risk this may be influenced by external factors such as Risks press coverage. Many aspects of local bus service satisfaction are beyond the control of the Council. Specific risks to the achievement of the target include operators cutting or withdrawing services, increasing fares and delays in the provision of public transport infrastructure. It is important that we maintain partnership working to address any problems should they arise.

138 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

BVPI 223, 224a & 224b Road Condition

Indicator Definition Target BVPI 223 Road condition Decrease the % of principal roads Principal Roads requiring structural maintenance Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2005-06 To be set To be set To be set To be set To be set To be set To be set Indicator Definition Target BVPI 224a Road condition non- Decrease the % of non-principal roads principal roads requiring structural maintenance Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2005-06 To be set To be set To be set To be set To be set To be set To be set Indicator Definition Target BVPI 224b Road condition Decrease the % of unclassified Roads Unclassified Roads requiring structural maintenance Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2003-04 10.5% 15.98% 10.5% 10.5% 10.5% 10.5% 10.5%

National objective Congestion.

Data and monitoring BVPI 223 is a new indicator designed around the SCANNER machine based survey data. BVPI 224a and BVPI 224b are measured through the TRACS type survey (TTS), a nationally standardised survey methodology. This is a relatively new method and therefore we will set a 2005-06 baseline using the new survey results.

Basis for targets and The monitoring of the condition of non-principal and unclassified roads trajectories previously used the coarse visual inspection (CVI) method, which can produce variable results. The results for 2004-05 showed that both types of road are very close to the LTP1 trajectory (non principal roads slightly under and unclassified slightly over) and are therefore on track using the old method.

Challenging/ To be confirmed when the targets and trajectories are set. realistic/stretching

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council.

Risks This is the first year of results using the new TTS method. In view of irregular results experienced using the CVI method, we have opted to accelerate the TTS by planning 100 percent coverage of our principal and non-principal road network in 2005-06. This positive step means we will be able to analyse the condition of roads on a more consistent basis within a shorter time frame, resulting in a more efficient and focused programme of maintenance in the future.

139 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

BVPI 187 Footway Condition

Indicator Definition Target BVPI 187 Footway condition Reduce the percentage of footways requiring maintenance from 22.7% (2003- 04) to 7.2% (2010-11) Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 03-04 7.2% 22.7% 9% 8.5% 8% 7.5% 7.2%

National objective Congestion, accessibility and quality of life.

Data and monitoring Condition of surface footway (BVPI 187) is collected using detailed visual inspections.

Basis for targets and Strong commitment and recent record of funding footway maintenance. trajectories

Challenging/ Our target to improve the condition of footpaths is for a performance level realistic/stretching within the top 25 percent of local authorities against the indicator.

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council.

Risks For footpaths, there should be few specific risks as the number of qualifying routes is relatively small. Possible risks include scheme backlog caused by inclement weather conditions and revised funding priorities.

LTP1 Accessibility

Indicator Definition Target LTP1 Accessibility To improve accessibility Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 04-05 A bus None Not Not Introduction To be set To be set service from applicable applicable of new when bus when bus Newport service service is service is Pagnell to introduced introduced MK General hospital

National objective Accessibility.

Data and monitoring Information on the local public transport network, on the population and on key facilities.

Basis for targets and New accessibility planning software (Accession) commissioned by DfT will trajectories allow GIS-based estimates of this indicator to be produced for small areas.

Challenging/ Feedback from the LTP2 consultation highlighted deficiency in direct bus realistic/stretching services to MK General Hospital. Accession substantiated this concern.

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council.

Risks As this is the first time that accessibility has been measured, inexperience may result in errors and inconsistencies in the methodology and data, leading to unexpected results and substantial changes in accessibility levels between years. The lack of direct control of commercial bus services by the Council could create an obstacle to achievement of this target. These risks will be managed through maintaining a good working relationship with local bus operators.

140 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

LTP2 Area-Wide Road Traffic Flows

Indicator Definition Target LTP 2 Change in area wide Reduce Traffic Kilometres vehicle kilometres Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2003 1,825 1,597 mvk 1,665 mvk 1,720 mvk 1,770 mvk 1,800 mvk 1,825 mvk million vehicle kilometres

National objective Congestion.

Data and monitoring This is measured in area wide vehicle kilometres since the previous year (excluding trunk roads), using the DfT’s National Road Traffic Survey, at authority level, from a base year of 2003. This indicator also acts as a proxy for improvements in air quality and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Basis for targets and Relevant interventions such as CARSHAREMK, which has been successfully trajectories contributing to reducing car use, and the introduction of travel plans have been taken into account, though initial progress has been slower than expected in LTP1.

Challenging/ The aim is to slow down the forecast rate of traffic growth below the rate of realistic/stretching growth development.

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council.

Risks Specific risks to the achievement of this target include lower than expected growth in the use of walking cycling and public transport.

141 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

LTP3 Cycling Trips

Indicator Definition Target

LTP 3 Cycling trips Number of Cycling Trips To increase the number of cycle trips Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 03-04 600 269 300 350 420 510 600

National objective Congestion and accessibility.

Data and monitoring In Central Milton Keynes all the cycles parked in public cycles stands (plus a small number of conspicuous private cycle stands) are counted twice a year (in June and December) at 08.30 (in the business district), 10.00, 13.00, 16.00 and 19.00 on a Tuesday, Saturday and Sunday. The target is for 10.00 Tuesday as a proxy for the peak period 07.00-10.00. We also have 12 automatic traffic counter (ATC) cycle count sites and two other ATC sites, which are run by SUSTRANS.

Basis for targets and Cycling increased by 22 percent between 2000 and 2005. During the last LTP trajectories period, new cycle routes were built from Olney, Woburn Sands and between the Lakes Estate and Bletchley. New cycle facilities were developed outside Milton Keynes Central rail station and at other locations, as well as a ‘state of the art’ cycle safe in CMK.

Challenging/ We have adopted a 100 percent increase for LTP2. Our targets include an realistic/stretching element of housing growth which relies on others hitting housing delivery targets.

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council.

Risks Cycle use may vary considerably throughout the year, leading to significant variations in counts. Many of the 12 ATC cycle count sites have suffered from vandalism. By counting in June and December, throughout the week, and at different time periods, we aim to capture any variations in cycle use throughout the year, week and day. The combination of cycle rack surveys, cordon surveys and ATCs should ensure more accurate results. We will introduce quarterly parking surveys in 2006-07.

142 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

LTP4 Mode Share of Journeys to School

Indicator Definition Target LTP4 Mode share of travel to 11% increase in walking and cycling to school by car primary schools, 8.5% increase to secondary schools Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 04-05 30% 35% 33% 32% 31% 30% 30%

National objective Congestion and accessibility.

Data and monitoring This is measured as the usual mode of travel to school for 5 to 16 year olds, using school surveys. This is measured using a 'hands up' survey in the classroom, which takes place on one day in June each year. An additional survey was also undertaken in January 2005. The Government anticipates that data will be available from DfES's PLASC system as of January 2006. We anticipate continuing with the hands up surveys and using the PLASC data for validation purposes.

Basis for targets and In LTP1 we made some progress on this target. We now, however, have a trajectories clear plan to implement school travel plans and a dedicated officer to implement them. A target does not have to be set for LTP4 for March 2006, but we have nevertheless set targets for journey to school mode share.

Challenging/ We feel that the target of 30 percent, (although may appear modest) is realistic/stretching achievable yet challenging due to a number of unique factors in Milton Keynes including a rapidly expanding young population (above national trends); and a change of age transfer to secondary school, resulting in younger pupils travelling across a wide catchment area, and impacting on parent's decisions to travel to school by car due to perceived safety fears. We are combating this through the school travel planning process with a closer integration between feeder and secondary schools' curricula.

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council and individual schools.

Risks The principal lever for change in travel mode (away from the car) will be through school travel planning (STP). One of the attractions that encourage schools to participate is the availability of a Devolved Formula Capital grant from central government. This is only confirmed until March 2008, after which the local authority will need to consider future funding. Another encouragement is involvement in the Safer Routes to Schools Schemes funded from the LTP2. This will also need to continue and rise with increasing costs for engineering works. The STP co-ordinator post is funded through a government grant that is also only available until March 2008. However, we have already confirmed this post will be permanently established. The target relies on favourable participation in travel plans from schools. There may also be resistance from pupils and parents to changing travel habits.

143 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

LTP5 Bus Punctuality

Indicator Definition Target LTP 5 Bus punctuality Improve bus patronage levels through better punctuality. To achieve 90% punctuality by 2010-11 (95% for the QBI route) Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 04-05 Overall: 84% 85% 86% 88% 90% 90% QBI route: 85% 86% 88% 92% 95% 95%

National objective Accessibility and congestion.

Data and monitoring In line with the definitions of the Traffic Commissioners, this is measured as the percentage of services departing in a window one minute early to five minutes late (up to 5 buses per hour), or excess waiting time (5+ buses per hour). The Council monitors bus punctuality. This indicator will be measured on a sample of routes against the published timetable.

Basis for targets and We believe we can achieve a significant improvement in bus punctuality due in trajectories part to the range of projects and interventions that have taken place recently and which are planned in LTP2. As most of our interventions are focused on QBI routes, we have set a separate, tougher target for these routes.

Challenging/ We have a tougher target for QBI bus routes, as our interventions are focused realistic/stretching more on these routes.

Lead organisation. Bus operators and Milton Keynes Council.

Risks Many aspects of bus punctuality are beyond the control of the Council. Increasing car use may affect bus punctuality. It is important that we maintain partnership working with bus operators to address problems should they occur.

144 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

LTP6 Changes in Peak Period Traffic Flows to Urban Centres

Indicator Definition Target LTP6 Peak period traffic flows to To reduce the rate of traffic growth to a urban centres 14% increase by 2010-11 Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 03-04 26,900 23,500 24,500 25,300 26,000 26,500 26,900

National objective Congestion.

Data and monitoring This is measured as the number of vehicles entering Central Milton Keynes during the morning peak (07.00-10.00). The indicator is expressed as the annual average daily traffic. It is measured using a vehicle cordon at ten locations around the central area, for one continuous week, twice a year.

Basis for targets and During the LTP1 period the CARSHAREMK scheme was set up to promote trajectories car sharing. Its 2,000 plus members can use priority parking spaces in CMK and discounted bus travel. It reduces car journeys to work, making car commuting cheaper and less stressful. In a recent survey, over 80 percent of the priority parking spaces were used. The CMK parking scheme will be further developed.

Challenging/ Our target is to reduce the rate of traffic growth to a 14 percent increase by realistic/stretching 2010-11, compared with the population growth of 18 percent.

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council.

Risks To achieve the target we will be relying on increasing the use of non-car modes. In LTP1 progress was consistent for buses but inconsistent for other modes. We will monitor the changes in the use all of all non-car modes.

LTP7 Congestion (Vehicle Delay)

Indicator Definition Target LTP7 Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 04-05 To be finalised

National objective Congestion.

Data and monitoring This indicator is not mandatory for Milton Keynes, but will be measured. We are exploring the feasibility of using CATMAN (Congestion and Traffic Monitoring and Analysis) as we will introduce a 'vehicle delay' target and report it in the first LTP2 delivery report.

Basis for targets and A £1.5 million urban traffic management control (UTMC) system, funded by trajectories EP, delivered to manage traffic flows more efficiently in Central Milton Keynes. This scheme complements the variable message signing (VMS) system, which reduces ‘cruising’ by identifying parking availability.

Challenging/ To be confirmed when a target has been set. realistic/stretching

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council.

Risks Congestion may be affected by a number of factors that the Council has limited control over, such as a high rate of employment and housing growth.

145 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

LTP8 Air Quality

Indicator Definition Target LTP 8 Air Quality (NO2 & PM10) To improve Air Quality within National Air Quality Strategy targets Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 04-05 Within: Within: 3 NO2 NO2 a) 40 µg/m a) 40µg/m3 a) <40 µg/m3 b) 40 µg/m3 PM10 PM10 b)40µg/m3 b) <40 µg/m3

National objective Air quality.

Data and monitoring This is measured in the form of annual mean NO2 levels and annual mean PM10 (average at four air quality monitoring stations - two fixed and two mobile). To calculate an average figure across monitoring sites it is recommended that data from at least four sites should be used.

We monitor data from a site in the High Street, Olney as this has relatively poor air quality compared with the rest of Milton Keynes. More assessments are planned for this site and we may adopt a specific target if necessary. We will also monitor annual average traffic flows from the DfT permanent automatic traffic counter site south of the High Street to indicate changes in emissions.

Basis for targets and The 2005 APR reported that all our air quality targets are all either on track or trajectories have been achieved. Carbon monoxide is no longer being monitored due to the very low levels of recordings. This saving in resource has been redirected to other areas of the air quality monitoring programme. The basis for the targets are the National Air Quality Strategy targets.

Challenging/ There are concerns that the High Street, Olney levels could exceed the realistic/stretching National Air Quality targets.

Lead Organisation Milton Keynes Council.

Risks Lower than expected growth in public transport use, walking and cycling. The impact of regional growth in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub- Region.

146 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

MKC1 To Increase Usage of Community Transport

Indicator Definition Target MKC1 Number of single trips on To increase usage of community transport the Fastchair service by 50% Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 04-05 50% To be +5% +16% +27% +38% +50% increase confirmed

National objective Accessibility.

Data and monitoring This indicator is the number of people using community transport services provided by the authority or voluntary organisations. This information will be available within the authority or from the voluntary organisations providing the services.

Basis for targets and The service was recently redesigned. The recent independent study indicates trajectories that significant increases in patronage on community transport services are achievable over the next few years.

Challenging/ We have redesigned the service and our independent study indicates that a realistic/stretching 50 percent increase is achievable.

Lead organisation Community transport service providers and Milton Keynes Council.

Risks Services rely on the performance of an external transport operator. We will ensure that we continue to work closely with transport operators.

MKC2 Road Casualties (MKC Roads Only)

Indicator Definition Target MKC2 Number of killed or 50% reduction in the number of people seriously injured on MKC killed or seriously injured roads Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 94-98 average 85 169 118 110 101 93 85

National objective Road safety.

Data and monitoring Using the 1994-98 average as a baseline.

Basis for targets and Very good progress has been made in reaching previous targets set for road trajectories casualty reductions.

Challenging/ We have adopted a 50 percent casualty reduction target as in LTP1, set realistic/stretching against a background of growth.

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council

Risks The expected growth in population, together with the relatively small number of total casualties on which to report, means that there are risks inherent in using the data as results may vary significantly from year to year. There is also a possible risk that increases in walking and cycling may result in more accidents.

147 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11

MKC3 Bus Patronage on Contracted Services

Indicator Definition Target MKC3 Bus Patronage on To increase bus use on contracted Contracted Services services by 23% Target Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 04-05 23% 0% 4% 8% 13% 18% 23%

National objective Accessibility.

Data and monitoring Bus data from contracted service operators.

Basis for targets and Trajectories

Challenging/ The target here is to increase bus use on contracted services by 23 percent. realistic/stretching National figures suggest that bus patronage (outside London) is falling and we have set a target for rising patronage.

Lead organisation Milton Keynes Council.

Risks Our targets include an element of housing growth which relies on others hitting housing delivery targets.

148 Section 7 – Targets and Indicators Provisional Local Transport Plan 2006-07 to 2010-11 8. THE NEXT STEPS

INTRODUCTION

8.1 Transport planning is an ongoing process. This document, our second LTP, sets out our plans for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11. It was submitted to the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) and the Department for Transport (DfT) at the end of March 2006. Our main task over the next five years is to deliver the programme set out in this document.

FUTURE INFLUENCES ON THE FINAL LTP

8.2 It is possible that our corporate priorities will change at some stage during the life of this LTP. These priorities set the context within which funding for transport from our own resources is set. Over recent years transport has been given a high priority and, while it seems likely that this will continue, it cannot be taken for granted.

PUBLICATION

8.3 The LTP2 will be published by and available from the Council. It will also be available as a printable file through our website: www.mkweb.co.uk/transport or supplied as a CD. Reference copies will be available at all libraries in Milton Keynes and we can offer assistance in providing non-English versions in eight languages and for those who may require the text in other formats (for example large print).

PREPARATION OF DELIVERY REPORT

8.4 Our success in achieving the objectives and targets set out in this LTP2 will be reported in Delivery Reports (previously called Annual Progress Reports). The Delivery Report to be submitted to DfT in July 2006 will review the progress and performance of LTP1 from 2001-02 to 2005-06. Assessment of our performance by GOSE and the DfT during 2006-07 will inform the future funding allocations for LTP2. We expect, however, that Delivery Reports will only be required in alternative years.

Wayfinding 149 Section 8 – The Next Steps