Local transport plans - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 336

sections (advice which the DfT conspicuously did not follow in its own 2004 White
Paper!).
The focus on congestion was linked to the national objective and target for the
issue. The Government intended to take a 'close interest' in the development of local
congestion targets and to 'discuss each authority's approach individually through
direct engagement'. (The outcome, as far as the ten main urban areas in England
are concerned, is reflected in PSA4 reproduced in Box 11.4.) Congestion was
recognised as not being a major issue for some authorities and they were therefore
not required to generate proposals for it. The same applied to authorities who were
not required to pursue mandatory targets for air quality. However this narrow focus
presents difficulties for authorities who would otherwise seek to use economic and
environmental objectives more generally as the basis on which to justify proposed
spending.
The priority of delivering accessibility followed closely the same objective quoted
for LTP1, but was developed much more fully as a consequence of a report on the
subject by the Social Exclusion Unit (ODPM 2003b). For LTP2 all authorities were
expected to use accessibility planning techniques to understand the links between
social exclusion and transport in their areas and to develop transport solutions
accordingly (DfT 2004d). They were encouraged to develop partnerships with other
agencies in fields such as health, education, employment and social services in framing
an 'accessibility strategy' and progressively developing 'local accessibility action plans'
jointly with other partners to tackle specific problems.
Unfortunately no new funding stream was created to pump-prime collaborative
action in this field. As a result it can be difficult for transport authorities to achieve
serious engagement of these other bodies and recognition of their responsibility for
accessibility conditions (in terms of the location of their facilities and the operation of
their services in place and time). It is easier for them to follow the traditional path of
making their own decisions and to expect any consequential accessibility problems to
be addressed through provision of improved transport services. This is a cross-cutting
issue of the kind which should benefit from the development of LSPs and Local Area
Agreements reported in the previous chapter (Chatterjee et al. 2004).
In addition to the four shared priorities a number of other 'quality of life' issues
relating to transport were identified for consideration. These included:
• sustainable communities ('the creation of vibrant and prosperous urban areas')
• the quality of public spaces and landscapes (including the street environment)
• conservation of biodiversity
• community safety
• public health
• noise
• climate change.
The relegation of climate change to the last of a list of 'other issues' is especially
remarkable. Although the Guidance quoted the Government's CO 2 reduction targets
as set out in the 2003 Energy White Paper, consequential action was confined to a
single paragraph including:
LTPs should take account of the UK's CO 2 targets and should complement
the wider aims of Local Agenda 21. The Department is however also keen for