Local transport plans - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 339

Table 20.3 Mandatory indicators for LTP2 (to 2008/09) (source: DfT 2004c Full Guidance on LTPs:
Second Edition Annex A)
BVPI96 NI 168 Principal Road condition
BVPI97a NI 169 Non-Principal Classified Road condition
BVPI97b Unclassified Road condition
BVPI99 (x) NI 47 Total killed and seriously injured casualties
BVPI99 (y) NI 48 Child killed and seriously injured casualties
BVPI99 (z) Total slight casualties
BVPI102 NI 177 Public transport patronage.
BVPI104 Satisfaction with local bus services
BVPI187 Footway condition
LTP1 NI 175 An accessibility target
LTP2 Change in area-wide road traffic mileage
LTP3 Cycling trips (annualised index)
LTP4 NI 198 Mode share of journeys to school
LTP5 NI 178 A bus punctuality indicator
LTP61 Changes in peak period traffic flows to urban centres
LTP71 NI 167 Congestion (vehicle delay)
LTP81 An air quality target
1 Mandatory for only certain authorities.
BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator, LTP = Local Transport Plan indicator, NI = National
Indicator (from 2008/09)
For details and definition of the LTP indicators and the areas to which they apply see Technical
guidance on monitoring the LTP2 mandatory indicators DfT December 2004; also Local Accessibility
Indicators for LTP2 Letter dated 10 November 2005
mileage. As part of their 2008 review authorities are asked to consider which of the
remaining indicators they may wish to continue to monitor.
20.8 The treatment of major schemes
The design and appraisal of local authority major schemes is a protracted business
which typically extends over several years. For this reason LTPs do not necessarily
include the details of such proposals - rather LTP submission provides the opportunity
for authorities to register their intent to develop such schemes and the anticipated
timescale involved.
To qualify for consideration as a major scheme a proposal has to be seeking funding
of more than £5m. It can consist of several components but authorities have to be able
to demonstrate that there are additional benefits to be derived from delivering them
at one go rather than separately on an incremental basis from the block allocation.
In its LTP2 guidance the DfT noted the increasing pressure on funding of major
schemes. This arose from a combination of new demands (e.g. arising from the Multi-
Modal Studies programme, the Sustainable Communities Plan and Regional Transport
Strategies more generally) plus the 'hangover' effect from a number of approved