Agenda item

The Transportation and Safety Package Programme 2009/10

Minutes:

Report by Head of Transport & Development Planning)

 

(1)       Kent County Council’s (KCC) local transport funding for 2009/10 was determined by the Department for Transport (DfT) in November 2007 as part of its assessment and settlement announcement regarding Kent’s transport strategy, the Local Transport Plan (LTP).  This funding had been provided to support local transport schemes that delivered the LTP, which itself set out the County Council’s approach to achieving a number of key transport objectives, including:-

 

·        Improve access to key services by sustainable modes of transport;

·        Tackle the occurrence of peak hour congestion, particularly in larger urban areas;

·        Improve road safety by reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on Kent’s roads;

·        Improve local air quality, particularly in designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).

 

            (2)       Kent’s LTP funding for 2009/10 included a capital allocation of £14.752M, which consisted of borrowing approvals and grant and was specifically for the implementation of Integrated Transport (IT) schemes.  Of the £14.752M, £2.600M would be used to fund detailed design and supervision of construction of 2009/10 schemes as well as forward design of 2010/11 schemes, and £2.200M was required to complete the 2008/09 programme.  These included schemes which had been deferred in order to provide additional funding for maintenance in 2008/09.  This resulted in a budget of £9.952M for implementation of new schemes.  The allocation for new schemes in 2008/09 was £9.65M.

      (3)                   The report provided details of the 69 schemes that made up the proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 together with a brief summary of key elements of the programme.  The schemes proposed for 2009/10 were set out in the Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(4)       The proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 had been devised using Kent’s Scheme Prioritisation Methodology, PIPKIN.  A report outlining the principles and a proposal to implement PIPKIN was presented to the Board in July 2006, and was approved by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste on the strength of the recommendations of this Board.

 

            (5)       All scheme proposals had been subjected to a formal assessment and prioritised in accordance with their likely impact and wider contribution towards Kent’s strategic and local transport objectives.  The relative merit of each scheme had been determined in comparison to others submitted in the same year.  Revisions to the viability of some schemes, such as their public acceptability and their deliverability, and the inclusion of previously approved carryovers from the 2008/09 programme had resulted in a final list of 69 new schemes to be funded from the 2009/10 budget.  Schemes which had not achieved sufficient priority could be resubmitted as part of the 2010/11 programme.

 

(6)       The 2010/11 programme would be assessed using a revised scheme prioritisation system.  The system was currently being developed through an informal member group and would be the subject of a future report to the Board.

 

(7)       The proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 included:-

 

(a)       Funding for the development of Kent’s successful Traffic Management Centre (UTMC) to new areas of Kent and targeted funding to support the evolution of UTMC in Tunbridge Wells, Gravesend, Maidstone and Canterbury (£1.025M) as well as extension and upgrading of the Kent bus tracking and real time passenger information system (£350K).

 

(b)       A new and innovative Kickstart Public Transport initiative (£1.627M).  Bus companies were invited to submit proposals for capital funding to deliver a step change in local bus services and frequencies to support regeneration and help tackle congestion.  Investment would fund new buses in Ashford including Stagecoach (10 vehicles) allowing Line A to be increased in frequency from 15 to 10 minutes and low floor vehicles and frequency improvements to be cascaded to routes 3 and 5.  Enhancements were also planned for route 13 from Singleton to the town centre (1 vehicle) and for Ashford E Line linking Eureka Park – Town Centre – Orbital Park (2 vehicles).  The enhancements would lay the groundwork for Ashford’s Smartlink network.  The Eastonways 38/38A, serving the Ramsgate and Birchington areas, was to be enhanced with 2 new vehicles.  2 new vehicles were also to be provided on the 326/327 Sittingbourne to Gillingham, operated under contract to Chalkwell.

 

(c)       Investment in bus infrastructure to support Quality Bus Partnership (QBP) initiatives in Ashford, Canterbury, Dover, Maidstone and Thanet (£0.8M).  This was match funding which had levered in significant investment from bus operators in new vehicles and higher frequency services.

 

(d)       Investment in road safety initiatives through a targeted programme of Casualty Reduction Measures (CRMs).  There were 17 schemes (£1.3M) in total with casualty reduction as their primary objective.

 

(e)       A smart card bus ticketing system was under development for Kent.  The precursor to this was to ensure all Kent buses were equipped with Smart Card Compliant Ticket Machines.  There were over 800 public buses operating in the county.  This £1.0M contribution would help fund a package of new and upgraded ticket machines for operators and help bring forward the ticket machine investment programmes planned by Stagecoach and Arriva.  It was proposed that the machines would also link with Kent’s GPS and Real Time Passenger Information System.  A pilot was planned in partnership with Stagecoach for Kent Freedom Pass holders in Thanet; it was hoped that a launch would be possible in September 2009.

 

(f)        A £250K investment was proposed to upgrade bus stop poles and information to passengers as part of Kent’s Public Transport Information Strategy.  This would complete a programme to upgrade all of the 560 most important (level 1) bus stops in Kent, it was also key to supporting a re-tendering of the Kent Roadside Infrastructure Unit.

 

(g)       The programme included a range of measures on the highway to support Safer Routes to School (£375K) as well as infrastructure within the school grounds including new bike shelters to support Platinum School Travel Plans (£100K).  Schools received platinum status for travel plans which had been in place for more than one year and where measures in the plan were actively being implemented.  The schemes were part of Kent’s successful travel to school initiative which had achieved a 5% switch at primary schools from car to walking to school.

 

(h)       £100K was to be spent on upgrading pedestrian crossings to DDA compliancy.  A further £50K was to be top sliced from the programme to introduce dropped kerbs requested through the year by the public.

 

(8)       Many of the schemes within the programme had been developed in consultation with local stakeholders and Members.  Subject to approval of the programme by the Cabinet Member, the schemes would now be reported through the Joint Transportation Boards as part of the ongoing design and consultation process.

 

(9)       The proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 of 69 schemes detailed in the report would make an important contribution to delivering targets in Kent’s Local Transport Plan: tackling congestion, improving road safety, enhancing access to local services by bus, for cyclists and pedestrians and contributing to improvements in local air quality.

 

(10)     The Board:-

 

(a)       supported the proposal for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that the proposed Transportation and Safety Package Programme for 2009/10 be approved;

 

(b)       noted the development and application of Kent’s new Scheme Prioritisation System; and

 

(c)       agreed that the Joint Transportation Boards receive updates on the approved schemes in their areas.

 

 

Supporting documents: