Local transport plans - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 332

Table 20.1 The formula-based element of LTP2 funding for 'integrated transport' (source: DfT July
2005c An nex A)
Shared priority

Weight Indicator(s) used in formula

Public transport 30% Patronage data for bus and light rail in the LTP area

Road safety 20% Casualty figures, but using 1994-98 baseline data in order

not to penalise authorities who have made good progress
since towards the Government's targets

30% Resident population and size of urban area, with an
adjustment for daytime population (25%); presence of
designated Air Quality Management Area (5%)
Accessibility 20% Resident population, number of non-car-owners and
Index of Multiple Deprivation (15%); rural population in
settlements < 25,000 (5%)
*Practical data problems prevent the extent of congestion itself being used as an indicator
Note: The DfT claims that about 20% of the funding formula rests on representations of each of the
five shared priorities, given that better public transport can contribute to reducing congestion and
pollution. The weights for public transport and road safety reflect the proportion of integrated block
funding that has been devoted nationwide to these measures in recent years

*Congestion and
pollution

given in Annex A of the Consultation Paper and are summarised in Table 20.1. The
formula is to be supplemented by a limited number of special payments - about £10m
in total annually to authorities designated as 'growth areas' within the Sustainable
Communities programme and a similar sum to areas with EU Objective One status
(Cornwall, Merseyside and South Yorkshire).
Nationally the guideline expenditure in 2010/11 is about 8% higher in cash terms
than the average annual indicative allocation during LTP1, but the application of the
formula results in major gainers and losers amongst individual local authorities (see
Table 20.2). Those which had a high level of funding historically and which did well
as a result of the assessments during the first LTP period tend to lose in relative - and
sometimes absolute - terms and vice versa. In order to make for a smooth transition
the formula approach is therefore being phased in over the five years of the LTP2
period.
The allocations for 2007/08 and remaining years of the LTP2 period deriving from
the phased introduction of the formula were added to in certain cases as a result of
the Department's assessment of authorities' LTP2s and LTP1 Delivery Reports. (The
criteria employed are given in Annex C of DfT 2004c and in 2005b.) Authorities with
documents classified as 'excellent' received an uplift of 12.5% in each case. As can be
seen in Table 20.2 the combination of the two enabled some authorities (Merseyside
and Reading in the examples shown) to avoid - wholly or substantially - the spending
reductions they would otherwise have had to contend with. Oxfordshire by comparison
was less fortunate.
Notwithstanding transitional difficulties in individual cases the combination of
a stable national spending trajectory plus introduction of the formula approach has
provided much greater predictability in the amounts authorities can plan to spend.
This represents a radical transformation from the very uncertain environment and
'bidding' culture which characterised the early years of LTP1.