Final Local Transport Plan 2006/07 - 2010/11

The provisional indicators and targets were then reconsidered, following drafting of initial work programmes aimed at meeting these provisional targets. This reconsideration took into account:

• The effect of the better developed and more detailed work programmes
• The greater level of detail about the anticipated future economic scenario
• The availability of resources for integrated transport, maintenance and SEMMMS, confirmed in the December 2005 LTP settlement letter from DfT
• Tests of the effects of the specified programmes, including further refinement and use of the Strategy Planning Model.
• Modelled interaction between targets where possible, rather than considering their effects individually
• Benchmarking our targets against the provisional LTP2 targets of other Metropolitan areas
• The latest guidance from DfT, in particular for the congestion, accessibility and air quality indicators
• The availability of suitably robust data, in particular for journey to work and physical accessibility indicators
• Results from our congestion study, which influenced the selection of routes to be monitored
• Results from continuing work on accessibility planning, which informed the choice of indicators
• Comments made by stakeholders on the provisional targets
• The effect of phased work programmes on target trajectories
• The recommendations of the Strategic Environmental Assessment
• Local area agreements and PSAs, such as those concerning Manchester City Centre modal split, and road safety.

The impact of the Transport Innovation Fund was not assessed, because the details and final funding levels are not yet known; targets may be revised mid-Plan in order to better reflect this. Similarly the full set of Corridor Partnerships work was not assessed, as work programmes are still being developed.

We have agreed with GONW and DfT that a target will be assessed as 'on-track' if it falls within a predefined range around the trajectory. This is necessary because fluctuations around the trajectory can be expected due to the limitations of survey methodologies and natural variation in results. We have examined the previous variation in historical indicator values to determine a suitable range within which we can be confident that it is unlikely that we are 'off-track'. More detail is given in the Monitoring Technical Appendix.

The end product is a set of final targets that are at the high end of what we can realistically expect to achieve, but which also show the real improvements that are within reach during the Plan period.

LTP2 guidance suggests that second LTPs should contain between 20 and 40 targets depending on the area. The Greater Manchester LTP contains targets for 32 separate indicators, 22 of which are mandatory and 10 local. There is a single Greater Manchester target for 26 of these indicators, but separate targets for each constituent District in the other six (BVPIs 223, 224a, 224b, 187, 165 and 178). In these cases, and others where it is legitimate to aggregate District level data (LTP6, LTP8), we have agreed with GONW and DfT that while we shall report the performance of individual Districts, the average position for Greater Manchester should be used to judge whether we are on or off track.