4 Progress on Targets
4.1 Progress against LTP2 Indicators
4.1.1 Our Local Transport Plan contained a range of performance indicators to help measure progress in implementing key parts of the strategy, Overall, we are on track with 20 (67%) of these indicators, 3 (10%) have potential problems, 6 (20%) are unclear, and 1 (3%) is off track. These are summarised in the table in this chapter. More detail on individual indicators is given in 14 ‘LTP2 Indicators’.
4.1.2 We have made good progress in:
- Maintaining principal roads and non-principal roads
- Reducing slight accidents
- Reducing the number of children killed or seriously injured
- Increasing patronage on bus, rail and Metrolink
- Increasing satisfaction with bus services
- Limiting the increase in congestion on 15 monitored routes
- Increasing levels of walking and cycling
- Preventing further increases in car use to schools
- Increasing the proportion of wheelchair accessible buses and the number of stops with raised kerbs
- Increasing the proportion of people travelling into the Regional Centre, other key centres and the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling
- Reducing emissions of air pollutants and climate change gases from transport
4.1.3 We have not performed as well as we would have hoped in reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents, or reducing car use to secondary schools. The newly established LTP Performance Groups are investigating the reasons for this and will advise on appropriate remedial actions.
4.1.4 There are a number of indicators classified as amber where there may potentially be problems which require further confirmation, where only a minority of authorities did not meet their targets, or where despite not meeting a milestone we consider that the final 2010/11 target will still be met. These are:
- Proportion of accessible rail stations. Problems with two schemes in the programme have been resolved. It is anticipated that the target will be delivered.
- Bus punctuality and reliability. The punctuality target was achieved, but reliability was not. The new monitoring system will be more effective in telling us the extent and location of problems.
- Travel to school modal share. Overall we were on target, but there was a mixed picture between school types. Performance for primary schools was better than expected, but that for secondary schools was worse. We are investigating the reasons for this.
4.1.5 In a number of areas, it is not clear what the data is telling us about the effectiveness of LTP implementation. This can be due to a number of factors, as described below. These have also been classified as amber:
- Maintenance of unclassified roads and footways. Survey methodologies may differ between authorities, and have varied over years. This has made it very difficult to interpret and set meaningful targets.
- Provision of accessible pedestrian crossings. Interpretation of the indicator varies between authorities and years, and it has been found not to be a good measure of the usefulness of crossing facilities for mobility impaired people.
- Proportion of public rights of way that are easy to use. Survey methodology may vary between authorities, and indicator covers a wider range of PRoWs than are of relevance to the achievement of LTP objectives.
- Accessibility to key interchanges by households and jobseekers. The indicators showed accessibility to interchanges by households was just below the target level, but had declined then improved over the LTP2 period, and the jobseekers indicator was above target levels. Nevertheless, the indicators were found to be too broad, not useful for breaking down performance by District, and are under review.
4.1.6 Subsequent chapters will describe the work we have done to achieve the targets, as described, and set out the steps we intend to take to improve in those areas where we have made less progress than we hoped.
| Headline indicator | Description | On track? | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Congestion | |||
| Public transport patronage
(BV102 / NI 177) |
Bus | Green | Milestone 228m journeys Actual 224.4m journeys Performance within tolerance limits set in LTP2. Represents 1% decrease on base. |
| Rail | Green | Milestone 19.4m journeys
Actual 22.2m journeys |
|
| Metrolink | Green | Milestone 17.5m journeys
Actual 19.7m journeys |
|
| Bus satisfaction | Residents satisfied with bus services | Green | Milestone 57% (2006/07_
Actual 61% |
| Area-wide traffic | Area-wide traffic on A&B roads | Green | Milestone 7386m km
Actual 7384m km |
| Travel to school
(% car use) |
All schools | Amber
(potential problems; see subsidiary indicators below) |
Milestone 28.5%
Actual 28.7% |
|
Primary schools
(subsidiary indicator) |
Green |
Milestone 40.1%
Actual 39.0% |
|
|
Secondary schools
(Subsidiary indicator) |
Red |
Milestone 15%
Actual 17% |
|
| Bus punctuality & reliability (LTP5) | % buses run on time | Amber
(potential problems) |
Milestone 83%
Actual 84% |
| % buses run as scheduled | Milestone 97%
Actual 95.1% |
||
| Traffic into key centres (LTP6) | Am peak traffic entering the regional centre | Green | Milestone 34,778 vehicles
Actual 33,970 vehs |
| Am peak traffic entering 9 other key centres | Green | Milestone 71,670 vehicles
Actual 69,267 vehicles |
|
| Congestion | Congestion on 15 key routes (person journey time) | Green | Milestone 4.83 minutes / mile
Actual 4.67 minutes / mile |
| Modal share of trips to key centres (LTP12) | Non-car use to regional centre, am peak | Green | Milestone 61% (2006)
Actual 61.2% |
| Non-car use to 9 other key centres, am peak | Green | Milestone 40% (2005-07)
Actual 41.9% |
|
| Accessibility | |||
| Accessibility to key interchanges (LTP1a&b) | % households with access to key interchanges in am peak | Amber
(unclear) |
Rebased milestone 83.6% Actual 82.6% Indicator found not to be useful in practice. |
| % jobseekers with access to key interchanges in am peak | Amber
(unclear) |
Rebased milestone 86.5% Actual 88.1%. Indicator found not to be useful in practice. |
|
| Cycling (LTP3) | Index of change in cycle trips | Green | Milestone 101
Actual 106 |
| Walking (LTP11) | Number of individual walking trips / person / year | Green | Milestone 243 (2005/06)
Actual 281 |
| Accessible infrastructure (LTP10a-e) | Wheelchair accessible buses | Green | Milestone 63%
Actual 71% |
| Raised bus stops on QBC routes | Green | Target 88% by 2008/09
Actual 79% |
|
| Accessible rail stations | Amber
(potential problems) |
Milestone 58 stns (54.2%) Actual 56 stns (52%) Scheme problems resolved |
|
| Pedestrian crossings with facilities for disabled people (BV165) | Amber
(unclear) |
3 authorities met milestone targets
Indicator suffers from problems in interpretation and usefulness. |
|
| Public Rights of Way easy to use (BV178) | Amber
(unclear) |
7 authorities met milestone targets
Indicator found not to be useful in measuring LTP performance |
|
| Road Safety | |||
| Road safety | Total killed & seriously injured road casualties (BV99x / NI47) | Red | Milestone 67 (2005-07)
Actual 77 |
| Child killed & seriously injured road casualties (BV99y / NI48) | Green | Milestone 58 (2005-07)
Actual 56 |
|
| Slight injuries | Green | Milestone 76 (2005-07)
Actual 63 |
|
| Air Quality & Environment | |||
| Air Quality (LTP8) | Index of NOx emissions from road traffic | Green | Milestone 88.9 Actual 89.3 Within tolerance |
| Climate change (LTP9) | Index of CO2 emissions from road traffic | Green | Milestone 101.3
Actual 101.4 |
| Other indicators | |||
| Principal road maintenance
(BV223 / NI168) |
% principal road network in need of maintenance | Green | All authorities met targets for 2007/08 |
| Non-principal classified road maintenance (BV224a / NI169) | % non-principal roads requiring maintenance | Green | All authorities met targets for 2007/08 |
| Unclassified road maintenance (BV 224b) | % unclassified roads requiring maintenance | Amber
(unclear) |
Salford did not meet target for 2007/08 |
| Footway maintenance (BV187) | % category 1&2 footways requiring maintenance | Amber
(unclear) |
Manchester, Oldham & Rochdale appear not to have met target, although annual data can vary. |
GMPTE Public Satisfaction Tracking Surveys
As well as measuring performance against specific indicators, we also measure general levels of satisfaction, via GMPTE's regular Multi-modal Tracking Survey. This concentrates on public transport, but also tracks satisfaction with car travel and walking. This information is used to inform strategy, develop work programmes and as supporting information to other indicators. It will also in future replace the Best Value public satisfaction survey as the data source for our LTP2 headline indicator on bus satisfaction.
1,100 interviews are conducted in the homes of Greater Manchester residents twice a year (in winter and summer), spread evenly across districts. An additional 300 interviews are undertaken in the SEMMMS area. A core set of standard questions are asked each time, so that changes in attitudes can be tracked. Each district sample is representative in terms of age and gender, and the overall data is weighted to account for differences in population between districts. In addition, 800 interviews are undertaken with frequent public transport users.
The chart below shows satisfaction with bus, train and tram amongst Greater Manchester residents (both users and non users of public transport), collected in surveys since 2001.
After a period of stability, satisfaction rose between 2004 and 2007, and then has declined slightly since. However, there has not been a corresponding recent increase in dissatisfaction for each of the modes. The main reasons for the decrease in satisfaction were issues relating to unreliable bus services and the need for more buses. However, a similar number stated that their satisfaction with buses had improved because there were more services are available than before, they are more reliable and the overall service is better.
Service reliability and affordability of fares come out as key factors in the level of residents' satisfaction with public transport. The decline in satisfaction with modes and changes in perceived importance of the different aspects of service delivery will be partly influenced by external economic factors. Aside from fare increases there have been no recent major changes in the operational performance of bus, rail or Metrolink services.