2nd Local Transport Plan Progress Report

11.5 Practices to Increase Value for Money and Efficiency

Performance Measurement and Management Review

11.5.1 Following on from the production of LTP2, the Greater Manchester authorities instigated a fundamental review to investigate how we could improve our performance management. This was termed the Performance Measurement and Management review (PMM).

11.5.2 It used the model suggested by the Improvement and Development Agency, starting with 'Taking Stock' of the current situation This involved discussions with a broad range of people with an involvement in LTP delivery, including project and programme managers, sub-group chairs, senior managers, members and officers engaged in related tasks of planning, economic development and public protection.

11.5.3 The issues fell into two main areas; data issues, and structures and governance. The next stage, 'Setting Direction' identified the following priorities for consideration :

• improving delivery by focusing on performance, strategy development and programme development and alignment, and incorporating greater coordination with officers from wider disciplines and other agencies as appropriate.
• periodic and regular review of organisational arrangements to ensure they are fit for purpose and consistent with changing circumstances.
• to better present and raise the profile of LTP and TIF objectives and targets amongst officers, members, partners and stakeholders.
• to better evaluate schemes and programmes in order for us to understand what effect we have had, to enable us to choose and design appropriate successful schemes in the future.
• to improve monitoring data quality in some cases to meet user needs; either in terms of frequency, format, coverage or robustness.
• to better share monitoring and evaluation information
• to get support and understanding for the above from everyone working towards LTP and TIF objectives

11.5.4 A number of early actions have been taken as a result, described below.

11.5.5 A Performance Group has been established, comprising senior officers from each authority, with smaller supporting groups. Responsibility for targets rests with the Performance Group.

11.5.6 These groups meet four times a year to coincide with the availability of data, to enable a speedy response. Prior to this there had been no systematic way of all authorities collaboratively taking performance indicator results, analysing them and taking appropriate actions. The group are presented with summary Red-Amber-Green assessment sheets for the latest monitoring results, and also consider spend and action plan delivery.

11.5.7 A review was undertaken of the wide variety of sub-groups that supported the LTP Steering Group (effectively covering LTP strategy) and Greater Manchester Association of District Engineers (dealing with delivery issues). These are being rationalised to improve their effectiveness. This has involved making all sub-groups effectively temporary, dependent on a work programme agreed by LTPSG and the Performance Group, and reporting to them through strengthened links which give all sub-groups a responsibility for relevant key performance indicators.  We have combined some sub-groups where duplication was occurring creating new, or widening the remit of some existing, sub-groups in order to cover the full range of issues, strengthening the links

11.5.8 We are also undertaking a project to make transport related data more available to officers. This will provide datasets in a mapped format, and also in tables which can be downloaded and manipulated. This is expected to improve the identification of problem areas, and the selection and design of schemes, with direct effects on performance and cost-effectiveness.

Collaborative Working

11.5.9 Following the conclusion of the Quality Bus Corridors programme, GMPTE and districts have continued to work closely together in identifying resources for, and a programme of, congestion and bus priority measures to assist implementation of the Congestion Delivery Plans.

11.5.10 We have introduced a number of initiatives to reduce and share costs.

• Trafford, Bolton, Manchester and Stockport are introducing a joint framework agreement with consultants for the design of a large number of smaller schemes.
• Other authorities, including GMPTE, also have framework agreements with consultants which help overcome fluctuations in workload and skill sets.
• Stockport and Trafford  have introduced a framework agreement for contractors.
• Manchester and Bury have entered into a joint contract for procurement of materials.
• Authorities involved in the Metrolink Phase 3a expansion are developing a collaborative working arrangement with regard to highways issues, in order to help deliver the project on time and minimise costs.
• Authorities have looked closely at workforce planning issues, and in particular at staff retention and shared services.
• Stockport and Trafford have agreed to share transportation and highway services, and are beginning to implement this across all service areas.

Better Project Management Procedures

11.5.11 Project Management Procedures (PMP) was introduced to GMPTE in July 2006 as a means of standardising the methodology used to plan, monitor and manage projects. It is based on guidance from the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and incorporates best practice for the Association of Project Managers (APM). PMP includes templates and guidance notes which are used in a structured format by project managers, taking work though its lifecycle from initiation to close-out. A key requirement of GMPTE’s PMP is the preparation of business cases for public transport investment projects. Often this will include a financial and social cost-benefit    analysis of options for meeting the project’s objective. Other relevant considerations that are not readily quantified – e.g. safety, access for disabled people, environmental impacts – are assessed qualitatively where they are important. Risks to the project are considered, typically through creation of a risk register. GMPTE’s internal business case guidance aims to avoid unnecessary analytical complexity and to generate clear reports to inform decisions.

Creation of Central Resources

11.5.12 In January 2007 the Greater Manchester Authorities agreed to pool the new Specific Road Safety Grant and from the 1^st April 2007, Greater Manchester set up a Joint Road Safety Team and re-formed the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction partnership; this comprised the ten local authorities, Greater Manchester Police, Her Majesty’s Court Service (HMCS), the Health Authority, the Highways Agency and other key stakeholders. 

11.5.13 The Partnership Team has an overall objective to reduce road collisions, casualties and deaths through the development and implementation of strategies to ensure delivery of the road safety targets and has a specific remit in the following areas of countywide work.

• The management and operation of the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership
• Overseeing the work of the safety camera operation
• Coordinating the Greater Manchester Speed Limit Review and the development of a Greater Manchester Speed Management Strategy
• The management and operation of the Greater Manchester Driver Improvement Scheme
• The development and implementation of a Greater Manchester Communication, Publicity and Marketing Strategy for road safety
• The Monitoring of the LTP Delivery Plan and Targets in respect of road safety
• The management of specific countywide road safety projects funded by the Department for Transport and other organisations
• Taking the strategic lead in the preparation of Greater Manchester Bids for future government grants for road safety projects.

11.5.14 The new funding arrangements will enable the ten local authorities and stakeholders to benefit from joint countywide initiatives and to pursue a mix of road safety measures to make the greatest contribution to reducing road casualties in a cost effective way.

11.5.15 There is a positive cost benefit to society from the avoided injuries costs compared to engineering and enforcement costs.

11.5.16 Further information with regard to road safety and the activities of the partnership can be found in 8 ‘Safer Roads’

11.5.17 Throughout the LTP2 period, the Greater Manchester Joint Transport Team has continued it's role in providing a dedicated resource to assist in the development, monitoring and review  of the Greater Manchester LTP. It is funded by all the ten authorities and by the Passenger Transport Authority.

Subsidy of a Socially Necessary Transport Service

11.5.18  GMPTE’s annual budget for the subsidy of socially necessary transport services throughout Greater Manchester has increased by an average of 15% per annum over the last four years in order to keep pace with increased transport costs, which are largely outside the control of the Authority, and the need to maintain services.

11.5.19 The existing criteria for subsidy of bus services were based principally on ensuring that every GM household was within a set distance of a bus stop with a set level of service (although cost per passenger and cost per service mile were also taken into account). In the light of growing cost pressures, a more objective, needs-based method of assessing supported services was needed. Following a benchmarking exercise with other authorities, a decision support tool was developed, which will significantly assist with the process for evaluating each individual contract.

11.5.20 This involves scoring services against various criteria and then ranking them in terms of priority for support. This tool will be used to measure the performance of all subsidised bus services,covering 550 contracts, and will subsequently be extended to cover Demand Responsive Transport services.

Invest to Save

11.5.21 Some authorities have used their own resources as part of 'Invest to Save' programmes to reduce the number of trip claims made by the authority.  See case study 25 and 10 ‘Maintenance and Asset Management’

Future Plans

11.5.22 A three year rolling programme of data collection is being compiled, in order to minimise any duplication of effort, ensure the necessary data is collected, raise awareness of data collected, and ensure that data collection is programmed and funded properly. Improvements have been made to the way in which some indicators are collected, focusing on those which we considered to be of the greatest importance and where improvements were cost effective. In particular, we have invested in improved data collection of bus patronage, and the overall survey frequency, for our key centres modal split indicator to give us greater confidence in the results and more up to date information. We have also revised the method of bus punctuality and reliability monitoring to give more reliable information which can be disaggregated to district and routes. Following the confirmation of the Government's National LAA indicator set, we are examining the definitions of a number of non-national indicators to make them more relevant and robust for our use. The project to refine and improve indicators is ongoing, with an emphasis on allowing information to be valid when viewed at county, district or corridor levels where appropriate and practical.

11.5.23 A number of Greater Manchester authorities already apply their own procedures to assist prioritisation of schemes. Investigations are underway to look at how methodologies can be improved or extended to all authorities, following the Atkins report for DfT into sharing practice. 

11.5.24 Greater Manchester is playing a leading role in increasing contact between the Metropolitan areas for LTP purposes, in order to discuss and resolve common problems and share good practice.