The aim of this research project was to assess the impact of two major government policy initiatives on the provision of road safety by local authorities. It focused on the implementation of Local Transport Plans and of the duty of Best Value. The first of these has introduced new mechanisms for funding local authority work and for reporting on progress. The second has resulted in new processes for assessing and reporting on improvement in local services. The impact of the first has been limited to local authority transport and highways work; the second has a range right across the work of any authority or police force. The methodology of the project involved seeking data from three sources. First, a detailed questionnaire was sent to all highway authorities. Second, a review of the Local Transport Plans submitted to the Department for Transport library was undertaken. Third, a series of in-depth interviews was held with local authority officers, national government and professional groups. The choice of methodology has therefore allowed for both quantitative and qualitative analysis to be undertaken. The response rate from the questionnaire was disappointing. However, it should also be noted that the conclusions drawn from the responses were reflected in both the review of LTPs and the answers given in the in-depth interviews. There is therefore no reason to suggest that the conclusions and recommendations are drawn from an unrepresentative sample of opinion. These processes were introduced in 1999 and 2000 and so it would be premature for this study to examine outcomes in terms of casualty figures and road danger reduction or modal shift. The research has therefore looked at the impact of the new processes on working practices. The 'Discussion and Recommendations' section has analysed in turn: the performance management framework common to both Best Value and the Local Transport Plan; the experience of turning policies into practice with the LTPs, APRs and Best Value; the guidance issued to authorities on the new initiatives; the adequacy of liaison and partnership working; the experience of the new funding arrangements; and finally the human resources available in this sector. The research has discovered that the new initiatives are largely welcomed by local authorities. In particular there was a tremendous amount of support for the LTP system and the 2010 casualty reduction targets for deaths and serious injuries. In addition local authorities were encouraged by the large increase in capital allocations, by the greater certainty provided through the indicative allocations of capital funding, and by the flexibility afforded with the integrated transport budget allowing comprehensive and integrated schemes to go ahead. There was a large degree of satisfaction with the quality of the guidance available, if not the timing of that guidance, and with the increased level of partnership working which in some cases had been encouraged through the LTP and Best Value, as well as through other schemes, such as the safety camera partnerships. There was less unanimous but still a large body of support for the Best Value regime. Several authorities reported that the duty of Best Value had instilled a more focused and prioritised approach, with enhanced consultation, partnership and the development of a performance culture within the authority. Even in authorities yet to undergo a Best Value review of the road safety service, there was acceptance that Best Value had already influenced the way they were working, although there was a tendency to see Best Value as a catalyst of change, rather than the sole initiator. Within this context of general support for the new systems, there were however several areas identified where improvements could be made to assist road safety work. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting