Second South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
REPORT TO CABINET 22 MARCH 2006
THE SECOND SOUTH YORKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN 2006-2011
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 This report seeks approval for the Second South Yorkshire Local Transport 2006-2011. All four District Councils and the PTE are being asked to approve the full document following approval by the South Yorkshire Planning and Transport Members Steering Group, prior its submission to the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber by the end of March 2006.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Members will recall the report to Cabinet on 13 July 2005 that reported the outcome of the consultation on the provisional LTP2 for South Yorkshire. Cabinet endorsed the provisional Plan, including the South Yorkshire Bus Strategy, and of the priorities for Sheffield.
2.2 The LTP Capital Programme Settlement letter received by the South Yorkshire authorities in December 2005 included a review of the Provisional LTP2. Overall Government Office considered that the Plan was “promising” (across the country plans were scored from “ very promising” to “promising” and “in need of substantial improvement”.) Three quarters of the submitted plans were classed as “promising”.
2.3 The Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber stated that South Yorkshire’s provisional LTP2 provided clear evidence that a strategy for delivering improved bus services and bus patronage growth had been integral to the development of options in the Plan. They found good evidence of plans to develop voluntary or statutory quality partnerships with bus operators. The Plan was thought to include a thorough analysis of road safety trends and issues in relation to casualty groups and deprived areas. However, more work was required to provide a robust strategy for addressing congestion and air quality issues whilst the potential for managing road traffic demand needed to be explored further. It was suggested that the Plan would also benefit from further consideration of value for money issues. A more detailed feedback is available on request from the author.
3.0 CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT LTP2 FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE AND COMMENT
3.1 With the main principles of the South Yorkshire LTP2 strategy agreed by partners, the main tasks in preparing the final version have been to:
1) Respond to the advice received from Government Office on the Provisional LTP2;
2) firm up the 5 year action plan
3) set out how the partners would spend the indicative £20m annual Planning Guideline funding for Integrated Transport and £12-15m for capital maintenance;
4) agree the targets and indicators to judge performance and delivery for the LTP2 period.
3.2 Since the Provisional LTP was submitted work has progressed in firming up the detail of the range of measures and types of intervention that could be brought forward in LTP2 in order to deliver a strategy that addressed the challenges and issues we had identified in our analysis and which would address the shared priorities (ie improving accessibility, tackling congestion, better road safety, improved air quality and other quality of life issues). This has been informed by:-
· a further round of public and stakeholder consultation;
· engagement with South Yorkshire Planning and Transport Steering Group (SYPTSG) Members to determine priorities for action;
· development of a Countywide strategic transport model to assess the possible effects of our strategy and its impact on targets;
· assessment of potential strategy impacts at the local level through a number of Case Study Corridors;
· provisional outputs from ‘congestion delay indicator’ surveys.
3.3 The result of this activity is a document that now has a worked up delivery plan and a set of targets that are considered both realistic and challenging in the context of a number of key background trends that set the context in which South Yorkshire must deliver the LTP2 strategy, including rising car ownership and usage and declining bus patronage.
3.4 The key development since the Provisional Plan is the concept of a Key Routes
Network. This originally referred to those main roads on which congestion was most significant. Part of the DfT feedback was that the LTP2 needs to highlight the linkages between the degree of congestion on our main roads and the subsequent impact this has on the operating conditions for bus operators; levels of accidents and air pollution; and the wider barriers to economic growth and social inclusion.
3.5 The Network of Key Routes includes those main roads which form the arteries of
accessibility to and between the principal urban centres of South Yorkshire, and which connect them to our areas of both community rebuilding and economic regeneration. These arteries also connect to other centres external to the county, eg Wakefield, Worksop and Chesterfield locally and Leeds, Hull and Manchester further afield. It also includes the 20 core bus routes from the Quality Bus Partnerships programme (and which between them carry 90% of all bus passenger journeys in South Yorkshire). Problems of congestion on the Key Network inevitably create problems of reliability and punctuality for buses, so a joined-up intervention strategy is required.
3.6 The Key Routes now offer us a framework within which actions and expenditures in
LTP2 can be prioritised across the Shared Priorities to support wider economic regeneration objectives. The principle of the Key Routes Network has been endorsed in principle by DfT as a helpful mechanism for prioritising the LTP2 programme and securing value for money, and subsequently by SYPTSG and the four South Yorkshire Leaders. The Key Routes Network for the county is shown in appendix A.
3.7 The Key Routes in Sheffield are shown in Appendix B. Typical examples would
be the Inner Relief Road, Penistone Road, Abbeydale Road, Barnsley Road and Ecclesall Road.
3.8 The 5 Year Action Plans to deliver the LTP2 strategy are set against the following headings:
· The Role of Public Transport
· ‘Smarter Choices’ – The Role of Softer Modes
· Achieving the Shared Priorities
3.9 A summary schedule of all indicators and targets that are proposed for inclusion in LTP2 is included in Appendix E (although most of these targets are still under review at the time of writing. An updated list will be circulated prior to the Cabinet meeting). Many of the targets reflect a desired level of achievement for South Yorkshire as a whole but some have specific values for Sheffield. The “Sheffield” targets will also be incorporated into Corporate performance targets and into the Local area Agreement.
3.10 The targets are both challenging and realistic, and represent a reduction on those included in the first LTP. They therefore reflect the more limited resources being made available to the Local Transport Plans nationally compared to the more optimistic view taken when we originally submitted LTP1.
3.11 In particular, the new targets have been set against background trends of rising car ownership and declining bus patronage, which make progress against a number of indicators particularly challenging. The targets focus on slowing the rate of decline rather than an upward reversal of a downward trend. These targets are nevertheless challenging both in the context of background trends and the limited resources available to us through the LTP progress.
3.12 The bus patronage target will represent a modest increase in passenger numbers, possibly our biggest challenge given the background of steady decline. This will be continuously monitored, alternative ways of improving bus service provision now being investigated
4.0 POLICIES AND PROPOSALS
4.1 At the time of writing, the LTP2 document was still being produced. It will however be available for consideration in due time prior to Cabinet, in the Members Library. The implication of the LTP2 policies and proposals specifically for Sheffield are illustrated in Appendix C, but will be expressed more fully in the Plan for Transport in Sheffield which will be reported to Cabinet later in the year (for subsequent public consultation).
4.2 The Key Proposals for South Yorkshire as a whole are as follows:
To Address congestion by:-
§ Improving operating conditions for bus operators by tackling problems of reliability and punctuality, prioritising work on ‘Key Routes’ and addressing certain bus ‘hotspots’ through Bus Punctuality Improvement Plans;
§ Tackling delays and unpredictable journey times on ‘Key Routes’ and, under our network management duty, improve the balance between competing demands of different road users; develop urban traffic control and intelligent transport systems; and operate Decriminalised Parking Enforcement;
§ Providing attractive alternatives to the car by promoting public transport, and the bus in particular, and addressing associated factors such as real time information, integrated ticketing, quality of waiting environment and boarding infrastructure, branding and marketing initiatives;
§ Managing demand and reducing the need to travel through integrating transport, land use and parking policies and enhancing the role of Travel Planning in encouraging smarter choices in travel behaviour;
§ Providing new infrastructure or facilities to enhance transport capacity but lock-in the benefits for public transport users.
To Improve accessibility by:-
§ Bringing accessibility into the mainstream of partners’ decision making on where and how services are provided, levering in additional funds where possible;
§ Providing local infrastructure and facilities improvements that improve access to the Key Routes network for communities in disadvantaged areas or improve access locally to goods and services;
§ Developing collaboration with communities through the Local Strategic Partnership, Local Area Agreements and regeneration processes to address access issues and opportunities;
§ Continuing to support rural bus services and pursuing innovative solutions with other transport suppliers and service delivery organisations (such as the county-wide implementation of ‘Wheels to Work’ initiative);
§ Engaging with partners’ and local planning processes to ensure new developments are planned with sustainable access principles at the out-set;
§ Supporting physical regeneration, incorporating access and transport to help deliver truly sustainable communities;
To Improve safety by:-
§ Targeting sites, routes and areas with poor collision records;
§ Targeting ‘at risk’ groups (e.g children in deprived wards, motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users);
§ Educating the public, encouraging and enforcing safer driving practices, especially in relation to speed management and, where necessary, engineering the environment to allow motorists to better judge appropriate speeds;
§ Using Safety Cameras in appropriate locations
§ Effective highway maintenance and winter gritting programmes;
§ Designing safety into new infrastructure and facilities;
To Improve air quality and other quality of life issues by:-
§ Addressing traffic growth through modal shift measures outlined under the congestion strategy;
§ Addressing transport emissions in Air Quality Management Areas through Low Emission Zones, promoting cleaner vehicle technology and awareness raising initiatives;
§ Minimising the environmental impacts and effects on our communities of new infrastructure and facilities through design and mitigation;
Managing and maintaining the transport asset by:-
§ Maintaining the Key Routes to a high standard;
§ Carrying out our network management duty to keep traffic moving;
§ Delivering maintenance programmes that are linked to the achievement of LTP objectives;
§ Improving the link between customer aspirations and service level targets
4.3 The overall strategy is however focussed around public transport, because so much
of what is achievable within LTP2 depends on our over-arching ability to improve
the quality, reliability and attractiveness of public transport, but in particular the bus. The South Yorkshire Bus Strategy is a stand-alone document submitted alongside LTP2 but is also summarised within it, the principal message being that South Yorkshire authorities are investigating various ways to improve the quality of bus service provision. This includes all options for improved forms of Voluntary and Statutory Partnerships, because we are determined to achieve a quality bus network.
4.4 Translating the LTP2 strategy into an action plan requires a more detailed level of scheme identification and delivery but in broad terms across South Yorkshire the five year programme, based around the DfT’s standard categories of expenditure, can be summarised in the following table, and also in appendix D.
Figure 1: To Show how 5 Year Planning Guideline Figure will be spent based on DfT LTP categories
Major Schemes
4.5 A Regional Transport Board has been established to recommend priorities for Yorkshire and the Humber to the Department for Transport for major transport schemes (costing above £5 million). These are schemes for both Local Transport Plans and Highway Agency roads. Priorities were considered in 3 broad categories:
· Block 1 – committed schemes
· Block 2 – LTP schemes where a major business case had been submitted.
· Block 3 – emerging schemes which local authorities are expected to submit for funding within the next 5 years.
4.6 The Sheffield related schemes that have been recommended by the Board are:-
· Block 1 - Northern Relief Road
- Sheaf Square
· Block 2 - Supertram extension
- Yorcard public transport smartcard pilot
- (Waverley Link Road – in Rotherham)
- (Robin Hood Airport access road – in Doncaster)
· Block 3 - A61 Penistone Road
- Yorkshire Bus Initiative (various bus corridors in the City)
4.7 Central Government will make a decision on the advice submitted by the various Regional Transport Boards by the end of March. In addition, Yorkshire Forward will be discussing with the DfT whether any of the regional transport schemes would contribute to national productivity in order to qualify for funding through the Transport Innovation Fund. Announcements on this will be made in July.
Transport Innovation Funding
4.8 Discussions concerning TIF bids continue. The view of South Yorkshire partners currently centres on two issues, the first being that the threshold for major schemes (presently £5m) is now overdue for review and should be revised upwards to give local authorities more flexibility in tackling significant projects. The second area for discussion concerns the categories of projects that are eligible for TIF bids. DfT is now considering how “productivity-based” schemes might be eligible, and the South Yorkshire partners are strongly in support of this. Most major projects in the Yorkshire Region are primarily needed to enable regeneration to take place and it is essential that DfT can be convinced of the merits of this. Further progress on TIF will be reported to Cabinet later in the year.
5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly as a result of this paper. The principles of LTP2, if approved for submission to DfT, will provide a steer on the priorities for expenditure within the Local Transport Capital Programme to be agreed across South Yorkshire. Funding will be provided by the Development for Transport via the LTP Planning Guidelines announced in December 2005 and reviewed annually thereafter.
5.2 A schedule providing a broad outline of how the South Yorkshire Partners propose to use the Planning Guideline figures for Integrated Transport over the five years of the Plan is set out in Appendix D. Many of the other elements of the LTP strategy will require revenue spending or capital funding from other sources, these will be reported to Members in more detail as part of annual Capital Programmes.
6.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
6.1 Meeting the needs of the economically, socially and physically disadvantaged is one of the overall objectives and commitments of the LTP. The objectives and policies within the new LTP2 are focused on providing access to the transport network for all users. All current and future schemes within the LTP2 will therefore be designed and implemented in furtherance of the Council’s Equal Opportunities objectives.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 A key feature of LTP2 is to promote and be fully aware of the impact of transport has on the environment of the city.
8.0 PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS
8.1 There are no property implications arising from this report.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Members are recommended to approve the Full LTP2 for South Yorkshire for submission to the Government. (This recommendation is subject to Council approval)
David Curtis
Director of Development Services
9th February 2006
File: TH/JEB/RJP
APPENDIX A
PLAN SHOWING LTP KEY ROUTES NETWORK
APPENDIX B
KEY ROUTES IN SHEFFIELD
APPENDIX C
MAIN LTP2 TRANSPORT PROPOSALS FOR SHEFFIELD
Accessibility
Within the LTP2 programme for Sheffield there is a need to provide a genuine travel choice of other transport modes for transport users in Sheffield and give disabled people the opportunity to be as independent as possible. In particular there is a need to improve accessibility in deprived neighbourhoods and communities to create access to jobs and essential services, which is an essential element of the City Council’s ‘Closing the Gap’ policy.
Having a high quality, attractive environment we feel safe in can encourage use of more sustainable modes of transport. An accessibility plan has been developed as part of the LTP2 and intends to pursue schemes that include:
● Bus Stop Improvements;
● Mini public transport interchanges;
● Vehicle purchase for community transport initiatives;
● Improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.
In terms of developments for Sheffield we will be working towards delivering in the following areas which support the accessibility plan:
● Develop the next phase of Quality Bus corridors in the City:
- A61 Halifax Road/ Penistone Road
- Ecclesall Road
- Sheffield – Rotherham via junction 34
either as part of the Yorkshire Bus project or as individual schemes.
● Improving integration of public transport with other modes of transport e.g. walking, cycling, park & ride.
● Promote the Supertram extensions to Rotherham/Sheffield Hospitals
● Promote a segregated bus route to Waverly regeneration site
● Improve the walking and cycling network across the city.
● Implement 2006-11 Cycling Action Plan
● Link to Area based Housing Market Renewal schemes to improve the transport network in local areas.
● Developing intelligent transport systems (ITS) to aid traffic flow on the City’s roads.
● Improve the public transport network through Quality Statutory Partnerships and Contracts if current arrangements fail to deliver improvements to local bus services and patronage.
Congestion
In the long term, the City must address the movement of people and traffic in the city. Due to growing economic prosperity, the distances people are travelling to work, shopping and leisure facilities are increasing so we must consider how people travel. There is a need to improve accessibility, not mobility. We should be able to access key services without having to travel further to reach them. We have limited amount of space on the transport network, therefore a priority to make the most effective use of the existing capacity.
The Traffic Management Act has an implication on the competing demands on road space and charges the authority with addressing the levels of congestion in the City. The use of technology including ITS will be an integral part of operating our transport network. Controlling the demand on road space will be achieved through a variety of methods including the tidal flow systems already in place and real time bus information. We have commenced a programme of targeted improvements to key congestion points on the main traffic network, particularly the key approaches and junctions on the Inner Relief Road.Parking is a major issue in the City and a number of programmes are being developed to address those issues, including developing policies around school entrances.
Some of the key areas that will be developed in terms of tackling congestion in Sheffield are:
● Better Enforcement of Bus Lanes – use of camera technology
● Effecttive yellow line enforcement - the City Council targeting its resources at key locations across the City such as central areas , radial routes, neighbourhood centres and schools;
● Junction Improvements – a rolling programme of improvements to congestion ”hotspots” such as key junctions on the Inner Relief Road
● City Centre Parking – quicker completion of central controlled parking zone and quicker roll out into local centres. Potential additional decriminalisation.
● Residents Parking –continue the development of residents parking schemes based on development of transport corridors;
● School Parking Zones – develop a parking policy around school entrances minimising conflicts between parked cars and children at the school entrance.
● Park & Ride – continue the development of Park and Ride sites served by trams, trains and buses;
● Travel Planning – more effective travel plans for new developments including improving enforcement and monitoring and supporting the development of School Travel Plans. The Council now needs to make meaningful progress on its own Corporate Travel Plan.
● Intelligent Transport – further develop use of technology to monitor and control traffic flows across the city. Future developments could incorporate more innovative ITS solutions including the use of Global Positioning Systems in vehicles assisting drivers to make choices and avoid congested routes.
Air Quality
Sheffield already has a number of areas that have low air quality, which has implications on the health of local residents as well as larger impacts on regional and national air quality targets to reduce pollutants. Transport has a major impact on air quality and measures introduced as part of the congestion and accessibility programmes will help contribute to improving air quality. We will also:
● Develop a citywide approach to address emissions of heavy vehicles by introducing a citywide low emission zone.
● Work with bus operators and HGV companies to ensure that fleets are environmentally friendly
● Continue to implement the air quality action plan locally including engaging with communities to take part in collecting air quality information by giving a home to diffusion tubes.
● Continue to work with the Highways Agency to address air quality issues near the motorway network in Sheffield.
● Development of travel plans to help address air quality issues.
Safety
There will be a continued focus on a programme of accident saving schemes and child safety zones as well as increasing promotion and road safety education. To improve safety in the City we will:
● Continue to implement the road safety strategy and reduce casualties by introducing measures such as Child Safety Zones in areas with the highest rates of accidents.
● Reduce serious accidents in the city by 40% by 2010.
● Continue to provide pedestrian, cycle and driver training and increase funding allocated to road safety education.
● Continue to do promotional campaigns on road safety.
● Review and improve safety awareness for all users of the transport network.
● Implement programme of removing pedestrian subways.
APPENDIX D
SOUTH YORKSHIRE LTP2 INDICATIVE FIVE YEAR IT SPENDING PROGRAMME
DfT CATEGORIES | LTP2 INDICATIVE SPEND (£000's) | CONTRIBUTION TO SHARED PRIORITIES | |||||||||
2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | TOTALS | Accessibility | Congestion | Road Safety | Air Quality | Economic Regeneration | |
Bus Priority Schemes | 4,208.56 | 5,219.69 | 5,639.62 | 6,193.46 | 6,719.08 | 27,980.41 | aaa | aa | aa | a | aa |
Public Transport Interchanges | 1,830.00 | 694.00 | 745.00 | 646.00 | 800.00 | 4,715.00 | aaa | aa | a | a | aaa |
Park and Ride | 814.00 | 650.00 | 1,224.00 | 1,060.00 | 900.00 | 4,648.00 | aa | aaa | aa | aa | aa |
Bus Infrastructure Schemes | 965.00 | 985.00 | 907.00 | 1,003.00 | 961.00 | 4,821.00 | aaa | aa | aa | a | aa |
Cycling Schemes | 420.00 | 505.00 | 570.00 | 605.00 | 550.00 | 2,650.00 | aa | a | aa | a | a |
Light Rail | 473.00 | 450.00 | 250.00 | 150.00 | 250.00 | 1,573.00 | aaa | aaa | a | aa | aa |
Walking Schemes | 430.00 | 641.00 | 415.00 | 485.00 | 560.00 | 2,531.00 | aa | aa | aa | a | a |
Travel Plans | 452.00 | 470.00 | 500.00 | 570.00 | 600.00 | 2,592.00 | aa | aa | a | a | aa |
Local Safety Schemes | 3,065.00 | 3,111.00 | 3,240.00 | 3,385.00 | 3,530.00 | 16,331.00 | a | a | aaa | a | a |
Traffic Management / Calming | 2,755.00 | 2,570.00 | 2,745.00 | 2,880.00 | 3,010.00 | 13,960.00 | aa | aa | aa | a | aa |
Road Crossings | 585.00 | 620.00 | 685.00 | 710.00 | 735.00 | 3,335.00 | aa | a | aa | a | a |
New / Local Road Schemes | 335.00 | 260.00 | 350.00 | 365.00 | 380.00 | 1,690.00 | aa | aa | aa | a | aa |
Other Schemes * | 2,574.44 | 3,117.31 | 2,893.38 | 3,022.54 | 3,029.92 | 14,637.59 | aa | aa | a | aa | a |
Totals | 18,907.00 | 19,293.00 | 20,164.00 | 21,075.00 | 22,025.00 | 101,464.00 | |||||
· N.B. Work is continuing to refine the “Other Schemes” category to further apportion amongst the main DfT categories and / or provide more details as to the type of scheme being funded.
MANDATORY INDICATORS (BVPI and LTP) 18 number
Ref. | Indicator | Baseline | Target |
BVPI-223 | Principal Road condition. | 36.77% (2004/05) | 30.35% (2010/11) |
BVPI-224a | Non-principal Classified Road condition. | No Baseline Required Requires TRACS | No Target Required Requires TRACS |
BVPI-224b | Unclassified Road condition. | 35.31% (2004/05) | 21.89% (2010/11) |
BVPI-99a | Total killed and seriously injured casualties. | 727 (2001-04 Average) | 582 (2010) |
BVPI-99b | Child killed and seriously injured casualties (3 year rolling averages) | 126 (2001-04 Average) | 95 (2010) |
BVPI-99c | Total slight casualties. | 5875 (2001-04 Average) | 5581 (2010) |
BVPI-102+ (+ other modes of Public Transport) | Public transport patronage – based on the BVPI related to total bus patronage, but authorities may adjust the indicator to include other local public transport modes. | 138.00m (2003/4) | 147.75m (2010/11) |
BVPI-104 | Satisfaction with local Bus services. | 59% (2003/04) | 65% (2009/10) |
BVPI-187 | Footway condition. | 41.12% (2003/04) | 41.07% (2010/11) |
LTP-1a | Access to Work (annualised index) | 100 (2003/04) | 100 * (2010/11) |
LTP-1b | Access to Local Centres (annualised index) | 100 (2003/04) | 100 * (2010/11) |
LTP-2 | Change in area wide road traffic mileage (annualised index) | 100 (2004) | 113 (2010) |
LTP-3 | Cycling trips (annualised index). | 100 (2003/04) | 110 (2010/11) |
LTP-4a | Mode share of journeys to Primary school (Provisional – pending DfES data). | 59.2% non-car (2004/05) | 60.0% non-car (2010/11) |
LTP-4b | Mode share of journeys to Secondary school (Provisional – pending DfES data). | 82.3% non-car (2004/05) | 82.0% non-car (2010/11) |
LTP-5 | Bus punctuality. | 86.9% (2005/06) | 90% (keep above) (2009/10) New method may change figure |
LTP-6 | Changes in peak period traffic flows to urban centres (annualised index) | 100 (Sheffield centre) 100 (other centres) (2004/05) | 100 (Sheffield centre) 105 (other centres) (2010/11) |
LTP-7 | Congestion - Journey Time. | No Baseline Required Need to establish by July | No Target Required Need to establish by July |
LTP-8 | Air quality – Pollutant concentrations in AQMAs. | 45mg/m3 (NO2) (2005) | 40mg/m3 (NO2) (2010) |
* = Accessibility Indicators are subject to refinement – Targets may have to be revised downwards pending further consideration of the impact of changes to supported bus services.
LOCAL INDICATORS (SYLI) 6 number
Ref. | Indicator | Baseline | Target |
SYLI-1 | Number of people accessing urban centres (annualised index; % by mode). | 100 27% non-car (Sheffield centre) 17% non-car (other centres) (2004/05) | 105 30% non-car (Sheffield centre) 20% non-car (other centres) (2010/11) |
SYLI-2 | Light Rail patronage. | 12.1m (2003/04) | 15.9m (2010/11) |
SYLI-3 | Punctuality of Light Rail services. | 96.7% (2003/04) | 95% (keep above) (2010/11) |
SYLI-4 | Satisfaction with Light Rail services. | 70.9% (2004/05) | 75% (2010/11) |
SYLI-5 | Rail patronage. | 4.86m (2003/04) | 6.35m (2010/11) |
SYLI-6 | Rural Accessibility | 95.0% (2003/04) | 95.0% * (2010/11) |
* = Subject to refinement – Targets may have to be revised downwards pending further consideration of the impact of changes to supported bus services.
