11.2 Expenditure in LTP2 Period
11.2.1 The annual LTP funding for Greater Manchester consists of three main parts:
- Integrated Transport Block (ITB): allocated as supported borrowing as a block for Greater Manchester, and apportioned amongst authorities by local agreement
- Major schemes: allocated directly to the relevant authorities, as supported borrowing
- Maintenance: allocated directly to highway authorities, as supported borrowing and direct grant
11.2.2 SEMMMS funding came as a discrete amount alongside the annual LTP settlement. Government's contribution to the Transport Infrastructure Fund (GMtif) was also identified as a specific amount within the LTP settlement. In addition, there were also some supplementary or emergency maintenance bids, or those associated with Primary Route Network or detrunking maintenance.
11.2.3 Government funding was often supported by other capital sources of funds, for example additional prudential borrowing by individual councils, European and regeneration grants, and funds from private developers.
11.2.4 Some supporting activities which are not suitable for capital funding, such as some routine maintenance, road safety educational and publicity work, and subsidised public transport services and fares, come from Authorities' revenue budgets.
Integrated Transport Block
11.2.5 The Greater Manchester authorities operated their own agreed formula to try and match resources to effective delivery of the LTP strategy as described in paragraph 10.1.1. This resulted in the following outcome:
- 20% distributed to councils on the basis of road safety needs
- 19% topsliced for Quality Bus Corridors
- 35% allocated to GMPTA for other public transport schemes to improve congestion, accessibility and air quality throughout Greater Manchester
- 26% allocated to councils to spend on other transport schemes to improve congestion, accessibility and air quality.
11.2.6 The table below shows Integrated Transport Block Funding allocated and spent over the first two years of the second Local Transport Plan period. Over this period, 97% of the Integrated Transport Block allocation has been spent by the Greater Manchester authorities.
11.2.7 The table below compares allocations and spend by authority. Note that the figures include the resources each authority has had to implement QBC schemes. This was initially given en bloc to GMPTA and then subsequently redistributed to individual authorities according to the work programme. The figures also do not include the Greater Manchester transport infrastructure fund or SEMMMS.
11.2.8 When delivering capital projects, especially those requiring consultation and planning consents, or constrained by operational factors, it is often the case that spending is spread unevenly across years. The effect of this can be seen in the comparison between allocated and actual spend by GMPTE, which made a £5 million contribution to the Manchester Airport 3rd platform project across three financial years. Whilst this commitment was made some time ago, the final payments will not be made until after the completion of the project in December 2008, representing a significant carry over between financial years.
| ITB | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | Total LTP2 Spend to Date |
2008/09 Allocated |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authority | Allocated | Spent | Allocated | Spent | Allocated | Spent | |
| Bolton | 2138 | 1816 | 1774 | 2108 | 3912 | 3924 | 2244 |
| Bury | 1448 | 1805 | 2032 | 1739 | 3480 | 3544 | 1488 |
| Manchester | 4789 | 4948 | 4216 | 3965 | 9005 | 8913 | 4584 |
| Oldham | 2348 | 2860 | 1982 | 2431 | 4330 | 5291 | 1925 |
| Rochdale | 2192 | 1153 | 3013 | 5021 | 5205 | 6174 | 1797 |
| Salford | 2311 | 2156 | 2639 | 2847 | 4950 | 5003 | 2261 |
| Stockport | 2227 | 2697 | 2145 | 1635 | 4372 | 4332 | 2156 |
| Tameside | 2307 | 2732 | 1747 | 1672 | 4054 | 4404 | 1725 |
| Trafford | 1404 | 1808 | 1321 | 1321 | 2725 | 3129 | 1640 |
| Wigan | 1973 | 1466 | 1881 | 2573 | 3854 | 4039 | 2499 |
| GMPTE | 10373 | 7412 | 13370 | 10909 | 23743 | 18321 | 13577 |
| Total | 33510 | 30853 | 36120 | 36221 | 69630 | 67074 | 35846 |
11.2.9 The table overleaf shows the Greater Manchester spend by scheme type category over the 1st two years of the LTP2 period. It also shows the spend for the financial year predicted at the start of the financial year for 2007/8 and for 2008/9. The final column shows explanations of differences between predicted spend in 2007/8 and actual. The Leigh Salford Manchester guided busway scheme is excluded, as work on this is being progressed through the Transport Innovation Fund.
|
Spend by Category (£k) |
2006/7 Spent |
2007/8 Spent | Total LTP2 to date |
2007/8
Predicted |
2008/9 Predicted | Explanation of significant differences between 07/08 actual and predicted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bus Priority |
6524 |
7298 |
13822 |
5471 |
1998 |
Incorrect figure for predicted 2007/08; it was always intended to spend money on QBC programme |
|
Guided Bus |
238 |
158 |
396 |
500 |
180 |
Work on Leigh-Salford-Manchester scheme is being progressed through TIF |
|
Bus Infrastructure |
838 |
1006 |
1844 |
520 |
515 |
Spend on city centre bus facilities was predicted to be from other resources, but taken instead from minor works |
|
Light Rail |
53 |
6 |
59 |
0 |
3640 |
|
|
Interchange |
3035 |
7089 |
10124 |
8173 |
5088 |
Carry over of expenditure: see para 11.2.8 |
|
Park and Ride |
414 |
14 |
428 |
650 |
500 |
Slower than expected progress on schemes. Some, such as Lostock car park expansion, are now underway |
|
Cycling |
1696 |
2010 |
3706 |
2404 |
1660 |
|
|
Walking |
2265 |
1666 |
3931 |
2964 |
1937 |
In a number of cases this was due to over-programming, or where schemes were delayed and reprogrammed for 2008/09. Costs were lower than anticipated in a number of cases. Bolton and Wigan used Transport Infrastructure Funds for walking schemes |
|
Travel Plans |
576 |
420 |
996 |
448 |
300 |
|
|
Safe Routes to School |
606 |
312 |
918 |
405 |
787 |
A number of schemes were delivered through other funding sources, such as the Transport Infrastructure Fund.
In some cases schemes were deferred following review. |
|
Local Safety Schemes |
7402 |
7487 |
12189 |
8271 |
7347 |
|
|
Road Crossings |
530 |
1706 |
2236 |
1140 |
1277 |
This increase in spend were as a result of a new scheme for pedestrian facilities at a junction in Wigan, and an
increased allocation to address the BV165 indicator in Trafford. |
|
Traffic Management |
2197 |
3154 |
5351 |
3234 |
3291 |
|
|
Local Road Schemes |
603 |
657 |
1260 |
617 |
219 |
|
|
Other Schemes |
3876 |
3238 |
7114 |
3934 |
5810 |
|
| Total |
30853 |
36221 |
67074 |
38731 |
34369 |
SEMMMS
11.2.10 The table below shows the settlement received by Stockport, Tameside and Manchester through the South East Manchester Multi-Modal Strategy. Details on how this money has been invested, together with future plans can be seen in the SEMMMS Progress Report 2006/07-2007/08.
| Year | Allocated | Spent/Predicted |
|---|---|---|
| 2006/7 | 6407 | 12544 |
| 2007/8 | 6765 | 7093 |
| 2008/9 | 6366 | 8304 |
| Total | 19538 | 27941 |
Transport Infrastructure Fund
11.2.12 The table below shows allocated compared to spend through the Greater Manchester transport infrastructure fund. Half the money comes from central government and half through the PTE's central resources. More information on how this money has been invested can be seen in the District Appendices of Bolton and Wigan.
| Year | Allocated | Spent/Predicted |
|---|---|---|
| 2006/7 | 7000 | 8394 |
| 2007/8 | 7000 | 7816 |
| 2008/9 | 7000 | 7434 |
| Total | 21000 | 23644 |
Maintenance
11.2.13 The table below shows the amount of money spent on maintenance compared to that allocated during 2006/7 and 2007/8. This shows that across the county, additional funding was spent on maintenance. This was in response to worsening road condition, and increasing focus on performance indicators.
| Maintenance | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | Total LTP2 Spend to Date |
2008/09 Allocated |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authority | Allocated | Spent | Allocated | Spent | Allocated | Spent | |
| Bolton | 5205 | 4897 | 4490 | 3987 | 9565 | 8884 | 5769 |
| Bury | 2014 | 2487 | 1541 | 2570 | 3555 | 5057 | 2189 |
| Manchester | 5016 | 7372 | 3518 | 3885 | 8534 | 11257 | 4219 |
| Oldham | 5024 | 5281 | 2745 | 2502 | 7769 | 7783 | 2926 |
| Rochdale | 2292 | 2217 | 2843 | 3261 | 5135 | 5478 | 2137 |
| Salford | 1719 | 1817 | 2149 | 1848 | 3868 | 3665 | 2284 |
| Stockport | 1711 | 5981 | 6091 | 8138 | 9826 | 14079 | 2558 |
| Tameside | 1942 | 1961 | 2088 | 2218 | 7802 | 4311 | 2093 |
| Trafford | 1310 | 3398 | 1490 | 1490 | 2800 | 4888 | 1467 |
| Wigan | 2473 | 2524 | 1972 | 1971 | 4445 | 12299 | 2401 |
| Total | 28706 | 41169 | 28921 | 36532 | 57627 | 28043 | 36839 |
11.2.14 The table below shows how the Greater Manchester authorities spent their maintenance funds.
| Maintenance | 2006/7 Spent | 2007/8 Spent | Total LTP2 Spend to Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Highway Maintenance | 21203 | 13002 | 34205 |
| Strengthening Schemes | 6401 | 5522 | 11923 |
| Structures Schemes | 7526 | 10412 | 17940 |
| Other Maintenance Schemes | 2805 | 3720 | 6525 |
| Total | 37935 | 32656 | 70591 |
Additional Contributions
11.2.15 The implementation of LTP schemes was supplemented by a variety of other funds. We obtained significant contributions through regeneration budgets such as ERDF, and through developer contributions. The total capital spend on transport will be higher still because some schemes totally funded from other non-LTP sources are not included in this figure, some authorities have difficulty in separately recording the sources of funds, and it can also be difficult to categorise certain schemes.
| Year | Other budgets
administered by Authorities |
Private / developer | Other grants / sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006/7 | 5535 | 311 | 5529 |
| 2007/8 | 3724 | 196 | 12426 |
