SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS
0.1
The purpose of this note is to provide further guidance and advice to
boroughs on the process for setting and agreeing targets as part of their
second Local Implementation Plans (LIPs). It builds on advice given at the LIP
preparation workshops held in January and February 2010 and should be
read in conjunction with the Guidance on Developing Second LIPs.
1.0
Background
1.1
Under section 145 of the GLA Act 1999, each London borough is required to
produce a LIP setting out how they intend to contribute towards the
implementation of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS). As well as outlining
the borough’s local transport objectives, a LIP should detail the specific
interventions and schemes intended to contribute towards meeting the MTS
goals, challenges and opportunities. A clear strategy for monitoring
performance should also be included. Boroughs are currently in the process
of producing their second round LIPs, which are due to be effective from
2011/12.
1.2
As part of the process of monitoring LIPs, progress will be tracked against five
strategic performance indicators on which boroughs are required to set locally
specific targets. These five indicators are shown below:
Indicator
Description
Mode share
The proportion of personal travel made by each
mode
Excess wait time for all high-frequency services
running within a particular borough
The total number of KSIs and total number of
casualties
Tonnes of CO2 emanating from ground-based
transport per year
The proportion of principal road carriageway where
maintenance should be considered
Bus service
reliability
Road traffic
casualties
CO2 emissions
Asset (highway)
condition
1.3
Each of the indicators relate to key priorities within the MTS over which
London boroughs have a degree of influence. It is recognised that boroughs
will be required to work with local partners and other organisations to achieve
their targets, including TfL, Primary Care Trusts, businesses and employers,
bus operators, schools and neighbouring authorities. Hence whilst the target
will be ‘owned’ by the borough, in much the same way as Local Area
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
1
Agreement targets, in practice joint working will be required if the targets are
to be met.
1.4
Definitions for each of the indicators, including data sources and collection
intervals, are available.
1.5
In addition to targets on the five mandatory indicators, boroughs may chose to
identify several local targets within their LIPs. The setting of local targets may
assist in:
•
•
•
•
Clarifying the need for funding for transport. This is particularly
pertinent in the context of reduced transport budgets.
Demonstrating the delivery of improvements on the ground and
complementary smarter travel interventions
The provision of evidence for use in a borough’s Three-Year Impact
Report 1
Identifying causal factors relating to the achievement or not of the
borough’s mandatory targets
1.6
Local targets are likely to relate to key priorities for the borough that are not
covered by the mandatory indicators, for instance a reduction in crime rates at
transport hubs or an increase in public satisfaction with the road network. To
supplement the mandatory target on bus reliability, boroughs are being
encouraged to set local targets on run time for up to four bus routes between
specified corridors. Further detail on this can be found on page 14 of this note.
1.7
Where a borough chooses to set local targets, it is important that robust
arrangements are in place (or can readily be put in place) for the collection of
the necessary data needed to judge progress.
2.0
The purpose of LIP targets
2.1
As a statutory document, it is important that a LIP can be assessed to
determine whether it is delivering its objectives and the outcomes set out in
the MTS at a borough level. The setting of strategic performance indicators
and targets is intended to provide a mechanism to enable the success of a
LIP to be judged.
2.2
The setting of targets enables a borough to focus its efforts and provide a
clear sense of what should be aimed for. In a business sense, targets can
form a crucial link between strategy and day-to-day operations. In setting
targets, boroughs are advised to identify key actions that are needed to
achieve the targets and this is likely to aid the development of transportrelated interventions to be delivered through the LIP.
1
At the end of the second LIP period, in 2014, each borough should produce a Three-Year Impact Report
detailing the impact of the LIP on its locality and achievement of objectives
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
2
2.3
Should monitoring of progress against the targets reveal underperformance to
the degree that a target is not on track to be met, a number of steps can be
taken. This might include, for instance, a refocus of the Delivery Plan or closer
working with local partners.
2.4
TfL recognises that the aim of all targets may not be to bring about
improvement. In some cases, where current performance is adequate (or
where funding availability dictates that improvement is unrealistic), a target
may not be for improvement but for a continuation of the borough’s current
performance. In all cases boroughs are expected to provide justification for
their targets and evidence that each target is both ‘ambitious’ and ‘realistic’,
and identify risks associated with their achievement.
2.5
Data on each of the mandatory indicators will be collected by TfL. This has
the twin benefits of ensuring a level of consistency when assessing LIPs,
insofar as the same method of data collection is being used pan-London, and
reducing monitoring burdens for boroughs. Moreover, the total cost of
monitoring is reduced through economies of scale.
2.6
It is planned that data will be reported directly to boroughs on an annual basis
as part of a wider liaison process on LIP delivery 2 . The data is also to be
reported within TfL’s Travel in London reports on an annual basis.
3.0
The process for agreeing targets
3.1
Boroughs are required to identify and agree targets for each of the indicators
with TfL. This approach, as opposed to TfL setting targets on behalf of the
boroughs, is intended to provide boroughs with greater flexibility to reflect
local circumstances. In addition, providing boroughs with the opportunity to
set their own targets can help to ensure the boroughs take greater ‘ownership’
of their targets and, by extension, their achievement.
3.2
To aid boroughs in the development of their targets, TfL has provided
background data for each of the indicators in the form of a benchmarking tool.
Where available, other data can be provided on an ad-hoc basis on request
and a number of boroughs have contacted TfL in this respect. When
additional data becomes available that is considered to be useful to all
boroughs, further updates to the benchmarking tool will be issued.
3.3
Whilst no rigid process has been put in place for the agreement of targets, it is
anticipated that boroughs will approach TfL to discuss their intended targets in
good time before the submission of the draft LIPs by the 20 December 2010
deadline. Agreeing targets in good time before the deadline will provide both
TfL and the boroughs with comfort that this will not be an issue within the draft
LIPs, thereby allowing boroughs to focus on the remaining sections of their
2
Subject to availability in the case of data on CO2 emissions
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
3
LIP prior to submission. Boroughs are encouraged to discuss their intended
targets with TfL before the end of September 2010.
3.4
To facilitate the process of discussion, boroughs are strongly encouraged to
send a note to TfL setting out their intended targets for each of the indicators,
together with a justification on why the targets are considered to be both
ambitious and realistic. It is suggested that this note includes:
•
•
•
•
•
A brief overview of past performance against the indicator
Key influences on the target eg. an indication of planned interventions
by the borough and other partners that will affect the target, Londonwide or national targets relating to the indicator etc
Baseline data, and values for each of the target years
Trajectories and milestones in the form of a simple graph (see Figure
3.1 in the Guidance on Developing Second LIPs)
A summary of risks associated with meeting the target
This note need not be longer than five or six pages, and should form the basis
of the borough’s Performance Monitoring Plan section of their LIP. Boroughs
may find it useful to refer to Proforma B as set out in Appendix C of the
Guidance on Developing Second LIPs.
3.5
The interim targets to be agreed should cover the period 2010 (or 2010/11) to
2013 (or 2013/14), with annual milestones, but should reflect a longer-term
target reflecting the timeframe of the MTS. This long-term target should be
explicitly set out in both the Performance Monitoring Plan and the note sent to
TfL. The longer-term target should be based on the expected future situation
once sustained investment has had time to make an impact (eg. between
2020 and 2031).
3.6
Should TfL consider that any of a borough’s proposed targets are not
sufficiently ambitious or realistic, one of several courses of action may be
taken. TfL may, for instance, seek additional justification as to why the target
is considered to be appropriate, for example on local circumstances that
dictate the target should be higher or lower than what it might otherwise be.
Depending on the outcome of this, proposals may be put forward for
alternative targets on which both parties will be able to negotiate. Ultimately it
is intended that the targets are locally relevant to each borough, and TfL will
seek to work with each borough to ensure the targets are mutually satisfactory
wherever possible.
3.7
When setting targets, boroughs are required to base them on a scenario
which assumes no major scheme funding will be awarded, beyond that
already committed. Should additional funding for major schemes be
subsequently secured, boroughs will be expected to update their targets
accordingly.
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
4
4.0
Factors to be taken into account when setting targets
4.1
In the interests of setting robust targets based on sound justification, a
number of different factors should be considered. The factors taken into
account are likely to vary depending on the indicator to which the targets
relate.
4.2
Factors to be considered when setting targets may include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Funding availability, including non-LIP related funding
Evidence of what has worked well in recent years in terms of influencing
the indicators
First round LIP trends
Background data, for instance that reported in Travel in London
The performance of other ‘comparable’ boroughs as an indication of what
is achievable (perhaps through use of the benchmarking tool)
Views of important stakeholders (including TfL) and key officers within the
borough
National and London-wide targets relating to the targets
Planned local interventions that will influence the indicators
Expected impacts (positive or negative) of any planned developments or
infrastructure investment invested by TfL over the life of the MTS eg. the
Cycle Superhighways schemes
Expected impacts (positive or negative) of relevant Mayoral policy
decisions, for instance in relation to public transport fares
Expected impacts (positive or negative) of initiatives and developments by
other parties which may impact on achievement of the targets (eg. the
adoption of cleaner vehicle technology leading to reduced C02 emissions)
Key performance indicators set out in TfL’s Business Plan (2009/10 –
2017/18)
4.3
The consideration of all relevant factors and the taking of different approaches
to the setting of targets will assist in challenging, verifying and refining the
targets.
4.4
Although the identification of risks to meeting the targets and potential
mitigation measures is not required as part of the process of agreeing the
targets, this should be set out as part of the borough’s Performance
Monitoring Plan. Boroughs are advised to give consideration to the risks
associated with meeting a particular target as the target is being developed.
5.0
Reviewing targets and setting targets for third round LIPs
5.1
At the end of the second LIP period, in 2014, boroughs will be required to
produce a Three-Year Impact Report setting out a concise account of the
achievements of the second LIP, so that TfL can assess the strength and
breadth of what has been achieved. This should cover the period April 2011 to
March 2014, and be submitted to TfL in July 2014.
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
5
5.2
An important focus of the report should be on progress made against each of
the agreed targets, including any local targets, together with an interpretative
analysis on achievement or non-achievement. Where targets have been
achieved, accompanying commentary need not be extensive, but further
explanation should be provided if they have not been met. Boroughs should
also provide information on proposed remedial action for the third round LIP to
help achieve the long-term target or move it closer to its intended trajectory.
5.3
Once a borough’s second LIP is approved by the Mayor, it is not expected
that the agreed targets will be revised over the course of the second LIP
period. However, performance against targets over the course of the second
LIP period should be a key consideration when developing targets for the third
LIP period. At the end of the second LIP period, in appropriate circumstances
boroughs may also consider proposing a revision to their long-term targets for
each indicator (ie. reflecting the timeframe of the MTS) for discussion with TfL.
5.4
TfL will undertake an assessment of the Three-Year Impact Reports and
arrange a formal meeting with each borough to discuss its overall progress on
the second LIP. This process should inform the setting of targets for the third
round LIPs, covering the period 2014 (or 2014/15) to 2017 (or 2017/18).
Further guidance on how TfL will formally assess the second round LIP
Impact Reports will be published no later than December 2013.
6.0
Additional information on each indicator
6.1
A rigid formula-based methodology for setting targets is neither available nor
desirable, and the agreement of targets will ultimately be based on a
subjective assessment carried out by both TfL and borough officers.
6.2
To provide TfL with a foundation for agreeing targets with boroughs,
consideration has been given to what may constitute appropriate targets and
milestones for each of the indicators. This has been done on a borough-byborough basis, but does not take into account local circumstances that may
have an impact on the targets. TfL will consequently consider this as a
starting point for the verification and negotiation of individual targets /
milestones, which will be supplemented by other relevant information provided
by boroughs.
6.3
Given the borough-led approach to setting targets, it is not proposed that this
information will be shared with boroughs. However, additional advice on each
of the mandatory indicators that may be useful in indentifying targets and
milestones is set out below.
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
6
6.3
Mode share
This indicator measures the proportion of personal travel made by each
mode. Boroughs are required to set targets on (1) walking mode share and
either (2a) cycling mode share based on LTDS or (2b) cycling levels based on
their own data. TfL has not considered what might constitute appropriate
targets / milestones for targets based on cycling levels as data will be
provided by individual boroughs.
Data source
London Travel Demand Survey
Data availability
Data is available from 2006/07. For reasons of sample size, figures are
reported as three (financial rather than calendar) year averages meaning that
currently only one set of figures is available (2006/07 – 2008/09). It is thus not
possible to look at past trends using LTDS data without compromising the
statistical significance of the data.
Base year
2006/07 – 2008/09
Trajectory data
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2010/11 should be the
average of the three years 2007/08 to 2009/10
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2011/12 should be the
average of the three years 2008/09 to 2010/11
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2012/13 should be the
average of the three years 2009/10 to 2011/12
• The interim target to be met at the end of year 2013/14 should be the
average of the three years 2010/11 to 2012/13
Key considerations when setting targets
• The MTS includes a London-wide aim of achieving a 5% modal share
for cycling by 2026 (paragraph 444)
• The mode shares of walking and cycling trips are interdependent,
insofar as some new cycling trips are likely to be previous walking trips
and vice versa
• Work has been undertaken by TfL Policy Analysis looking at the
potential for cycling trips by borough it is advised that this be
considered this when setting targets based on cycling
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
7
6.4
Bus service reliability
This indicator measures excess wait time (EWT) (ie. waiting time experienced
by passengers over and above what might be expected of a service that is
always on time) for all high-frequency services running within a particular
borough. High-frequency services are defined as those with a scheduled
operation of five or more buses per hour.
Data source
Quality of Service (QSI) indicators
Data availability
A mean EWT figure is available by borough by year, going back to 1999/00
Base year
2008/09
Trajectory data
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2010 should be the figure
for 2009/10
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2011 should be the figure
for 2010/11
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2012 should be the figure
for 2011/12
• The interim target to be met at the end of year 2013 should be the
figure for 2012/13
Key considerations
• The MTS includes an aspiration of maintaining bus reliability at 2006
levels, especially if measures such as road user charging are
implemented
• The Business Plan includes the following projections for EWT across
London:
2010/11
1.1
•
•
•
•
2011/12
1.2
2012/13
1.2
2013/14
1.2
2014/15
1.2
2015/16
1.2
2016/17
1.2
2017/18
1.2
Boroughs may wish to use the Business Plan projections as a basis for
setting targets / milestones (weighted by base year data)
EWT data derived from the iBus system is currently planned to be
available from April 2011. It is not yet known how this data will differ
from that collected through QSI observations. Boroughs should set
targets on the basis of QSI data and if necessary, TfL will factor the
targets accordingly based on benchmarking work that is currently being
undertaken.
The EWT of any service at any given measurement point will reflect
accumulated delays occurring on the whole route, in many cases
including sections of the route running outside of the borough in
question. Local authorities should work together and with TfL to
achieve the best results.
See also Appendix A for information on setting local targets based on
bus route run times
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
8
6.5
Road traffic casualties
This indicator measures (1) the total number of people killed and seriously
injured (KSI) from road traffic accidents and (2) total casualties.
Data source
Modal Policy Unit, Surface Transport
Data availability
Data is available in three year averages, going back to 1997-1999
Base year
2006 – 2008
Trajectory data
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2010/11 should be the
average of the three years 2007 to 2009
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2011/12 should be the
average of the three years 2008 to 2010
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2012/13 should be the
average of the three years 2009 to 2011
• The interim target to be met at the end of year 2013/14 should be the
average of the three years 2010 to 2012
Key considerations
• The DfT have consulted on a series of national targets, applicable to all
local authorities. The proposed targets applicable to this indicator are
(1) to reduce the number of people killed in road collisions by at least
33% by 2020 and (2) to reduce the number of people seriously injured
in road collisions by at least 33% by 2020, both compared to a baseline
of the 2004-2008 average.
• A further target to reduce the number of child KSIs by 50% by 2020,
compared to a baseline of the 2004-2008 average, may also be
applicable to boroughs choosing to set a local target specifically
relating to child casualties.
• No national targets have been proposed for total casualties
• Many boroughs have indicated there is a decreasing scope for reducing
casualty numbers through engineering measures going forward, and
increased emphasis will be placed on influencing driver behaviour. The
impact of this shift in approach to improving road safety should be
considered when setting targets.
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
9
6.6
CO2 emissions
This indicator measures CO2 emissions from all sources of ground-based
transport (GBT). Where applicable this includes emissions emanating from
road traffic (including trunk roads and motorways), railways, shipping and
airports (ground-based aviation) 3 .
Data source
GLA London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI)
Data availability
London-wide data is available for 1990, 2005 and 2008, and is planned to be
collected on an approximately annual basis going forward
Base year
2008
Trajectory data
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2010 should be the figure
for 2009
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2011 should be the figure
for 2010
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2012 should be the figure
for 2011
• The interim target to be met at the end of year 2013 should be the
figure for 2012
Key considerations
• The Mayor has set a target of a 60% reduction in London’s CO2 by
2025, from a 1990 base. Boroughs should take this target into
consideration when setting their targets.
• To assist in this process, an indicative borough-level trajectory has
been produced in line with this target. Boroughs are advised to have
regard to this trajectory when setting targets.
• Boroughs are also advised to discuss proposed targets with colleagues
who are responsible for the Local Area Agreement, and particularly
National Indicator 186 (per capita reduction in CO2 emissions in the
local authority area)
• Figure 61 of the MTS sets out mid-range estimates of CO2 reduction
impacts of transport policy areas by 2025
Notes and assumptions on indicative trajectory
• The MTS (paragraph 590) states that transport sector CO2 emissions in
the range of 5.3 to 4.6m tonnes will be required in 2025 to meet the
Mayor’s target. A range is provided to reflect the range in estimates of
how the 60% overall reduction will pan out across the various sectors.
• The relative contribution that each sector (ie. transport / homes /
workplaces) will make towards the reduction will vary
3
Note that CO2 produced outside London for the generation of power via the National Grid that is then used
inside London (principally to power electric trains) is also included
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
10
•
•
•
The upper point of the range given in the MTS (5.3m tonnes) has been
scaled to include all GBT emissions including those generated outside
of London (see footnote 3), giving a target figure of 4.74m tonnes. This
figure has been used for the purpose of producing a trajectory
Based on total GBT emissions in 2008, a 45.3% reduction is required
between 2008 and 2025. This equates to a 3.49% reduction per year,
in respect of the previous year.
The trajectory figures given are weighted by the base year figure for
each borough
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
11
INDICATIVE CO2 TRAJECTORY DATA
Borough
Definition
Base year
Base year value
Target year
2010
2011
2012
2013
Long-term
(2025) target
Target year value
Trajectory data
Barking & Dagenham
% reduction in
CO2
2008
157.00
2013
131.47
146.24
141.14
136.22
131.47
85.88
Barnet
% reduction in
CO2
2008
402.00
2013
336.64
374.46
361.40
348.80
336.64
219.89
Bexley
% reduction in
CO2
2008
232.00
2013
194.28
216.10
208.57
201.30
194.28
126.90
Brent
% reduction in
CO2
2008
231.00
2013
193.44
215.17
207.67
200.43
193.44
126.36
Bromley
% reduction in
CO2
2008
283.00
2013
236.99
263.61
254.42
245.55
236.99
154.80
Camden
% reduction in
CO2
2008
172.00
2013
144.03
160.22
154.63
149.24
144.03
94.08
City of London
% reduction in
CO2
2008
48.00
2013
40.20
44.71
43.15
41.65
40.20
26.26
Croydon
% reduction in
CO2
2008
269.00
2013
225.26
250.57
241.83
233.40
225.26
147.14
Ealing
% reduction in
CO2
2008
394.00
2013
329.94
367.00
354.21
341.86
329.94
215.52
Enfield
% reduction in
CO2
2008
336.00
2013
281.37
312.98
302.07
291.53
281.37
183.79
Greenwich
% reduction in
CO2
2008
223.00
2013
186.74
207.72
200.48
193.49
186.74
121.98
Hackney
% reduction in
CO2
2008
131.00
2013
109.70
122.02
117.77
113.66
109.70
71.66
Hammersmith & Fulham
% reduction in
CO2
2008
155.00
2013
129.80
144.38
139.35
134.49
129.80
84.79
Haringey
% reduction in
CO2
2008
164.00
2013
137.34
152.76
147.44
142.30
137.34
89.71
Harrow
% reduction in
CO2
2008
159.00
2013
133.15
148.11
142.94
137.96
133.15
86.97
Havering
% reduction in
CO2
2008
355.00
2013
297.28
330.68
319.15
308.02
297.28
194.19
Hillingdon
% reduction in
CO2
2008
1563.00
2013
1308.87
1455.91
1405.15
1356.16
1308.87
854.96
Hounslow
% reduction in
CO2
2008
356.00
2013
298.12
331.61
320.05
308.89
298.12
194.73
Islington
% reduction in
CO2
2008
130.00
2013
108.86
121.09
116.87
112.80
108.86
71.11
K
Kensington
i t & Chelsea
Ch l
% reduction
d ti in
i
CO2
2008
126.00
2013
105.51
117.37
113.27
109.33
105.51
68.92
Kingston upon Thames
% reduction in
CO2
2008
177.00
2013
148.22
164.87
159.12
153.58
148.22
96.82
Lambeth
% reduction in
CO2
2008
180.00
2013
150.73
167.67
161.82
156.18
150.73
98.46
Lewisham
% reduction in
CO2
2008
196.00
2013
164.13
182.57
176.21
170.06
164.13
107.21
Merton
% reduction in
CO2
2008
164.00
2013
137.34
152.76
147.44
142.30
137.34
89.71
Newham
% reduction in
CO2
2008
235.00
2013
196.79
218.90
211.27
203.90
196.79
128.55
2008
266.00
2013
222.75
247.77
239.14
230.80
222.75
145.50
Redbridge
% reduction in
CO2
Richmond upon Thames
% reduction in
CO2
2008
295.00
2013
247.04
274.79
265.21
255.96
247.04
161.37
Southwark
% reduction in
CO2
2008
227.00
2013
190.09
211.45
204.07
196.96
190.09
124.17
Sutton
% reduction in
CO2
2008
121.00
2013
101.33
112.71
108.78
104.99
101.33
66.19
Tower Hamlets
% reduction in
CO2
2008
218.00
2013
182.56
203.06
195.98
189.15
182.56
119.25
Waltham Forest
% reduction in
CO2
2008
177.00
2013
148.22
164.87
159.12
153.58
148.22
96.82
Wandsworth
% reduction in
CO2
2008
214.00
2013
179.21
199.34
192.39
185.68
179.21
117.06
Westminster
% reduction in
CO2
2008
307.00
2013
257.08
285.97
276.00
266.37
257.08
167.93
6.7
Asset condition
This indicator measures the proportion of the borough’s principal road network
(excluding TLRN) where maintenance should be considered.
Data source
Detailed Visual Inspection data collected by LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Data availability
A mean asset condition figures is available by borough by year, going back to
2002/03
Base year
2009/10
Trajectory data
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2010 should be the figure
for 2009/10
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2011 should be the figure
for 2010/11
• The milestone to be met at the end of year 2012 should be the figure
for 2011/12
• The interim target to be met at the end of year 2013 should be the
figure for 2012/13
Key considerations
• The level of improvement that boroughs are able to achieve largely
depends on the maintenance budget available (made up of LIP and
non-LIP funding). Indicative LIP maintenance allocations for
2011/12 are available on TfL website.
• A realistic target does not necessarily have to be based on an
improvement. In some cases a continuation of the existing situation
may be acceptable, and in others a deterioration may be acceptable if
the borough’s baseline figure is lower than the average for inner / outer
London.
• The 2009/10 data was collected prior to the severe winter weather of
2009/10, which resulted in a deterioration in asset condition for many
boroughs
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
13
Appendix A – Local target on bus route run times
A1.1 Improving public transport reliability is one of the key proposed outcomes of
the MTS, and for this reason bus service reliability is included as a mandatory
LIP indicator. In recognition of the limited role that boroughs have in
influencing borough-wide bus EWT, and given that alternative measures of
bus service reliability are available, it is recommended that the mandatory
target be supplemented with a local target based on scheduled bus route run
times.
A1.2 To aid this process, TfL is able to provide bus route run times (minimums,
maximums and averages) and standard deviations between any two userdefined bus stops on a given route / section. This data is derived from the
iBus system, and will enable boroughs to set more localised targets for
specific corridors (or sections of corridors) based on current conditions and
proposed actions. The data can be provided on an annualised basis.
A1.3 It is recommended that boroughs identify up to four corridors per year for the
period of 2011/12 to 2013/14, based on the following factors:
• Bus frequencies
• Where there are known traffic delays, typically such locations are often
found on the approaches to the main town and local centres 4
A1.4 Boroughs can then select start and end bus stops and a representative bus
route on that corridor for which you require the iBus information on scheduled
bus route run times (minimums, maximums and averages) and standard
deviations. It is anticipated that data would be required for a maximum of four
bus routes per borough for each year under consideration.
4
Note that bus operator hot-spot locational information can also be provided if required
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
14
Appendix B - Anticipated MTS outcomes
Goals
Challenges
Economic
development and
population growth
Supporting
population and
employment
growth
Delivering an
efficient and
effective transport
system for people
and goods
Quality of life
Enhancing the
built and natural
environment
Improving health
impacts
Safety and security
Improving road
safety
Climate change
Reducing CO2
emissions
Olympic legacy
Developing and
implementing a
viable and
sustainable legacy
for the 2012
Games
Expected outcomes
of the strategy on
2031
Public transport,
walking and cycling
mode share
increases by 6% to
63%
Bus reliability
expected to be
maintained
especially if
measures such as
road user charging
are implemented
Increased number of
pedestrians and
ease of movement of
pedestrians
anticipated in town
centres
Cycling to increase
by 400% from 2000.
Increased walking
Anticipated fall in the
number of
Londoners and
visitors killed or
seriously injured on
London’s road
networks by 2031
Anticipated reduction
in ground-based
transport CO2
emissions in London
of more than 3m
tonnes per year by
2025
Increased mode
share of walking and
cycling within five
Olympic host
boroughs
SETTING TARGETS FOR SECOND ROUND LIPS – FINAL v1.1
Base year
2006
2006
2010
2000
2010
2010
2010
2010
15