« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 16: Monitoring: Proposals for Indicators
16.1 The consultation stated:
One major challenge for transport is breaking the link between economic growth and traffic growth. Therefore, an overall indicator could be developed to look at the traffic intensity of the economy - in other words, how much transport there is compared with how much economic growth there is - and see by this means whether we are managing to grow the economy without growing traffic.
The consultation asked:
Q56: Do consultees consider that "traffic intensity" is likely to be a useful overall indicator of our success with the forthcoming NTS? If not, what alternative(s) would be preferable?
In total, 103 respondents (33%) addressed this question. Of these, 79 appeared to give a clear view on whether traffic intensity is likely to be a useful overall indicator of success. Amongst these respondents, views were fairly evenly split between those in favour of adopting this as an overall indicator (48%) and those against (52%).
16.1.1 Views on Favour of Traffic Intensity as an Overall Indicator
Only one key reason was given in support of this indicator, namely that it was useful in de-coupling economic growth and traffic growth. Others remarked that it would be appropriate only if it could be clearly defined and quantified ( LA), or supplemented with an indicator measuring economic growth ( LA, RTP, RTP, Oth PB), linked with other sub-indicators ( LA, LA), and provided its limitations were recognised (Rep Org). One consultee expressed their support for its use at national level, but not in rural areas stating:
" hard to comprehend how the economy in these areas (rural) can grow to a significant extent, without allowing for some growth in demand for transport" ( EC)
16.1.2 Views Against Traffic Intensity as an Overall Indicator
A wide range of reasons was provided against adopting traffic intensity as an overall indicator of success. These are listed below:
- Difficult to get one overall high level indicator of success
- This indicator is contrived and easily manipulated
- It doesn't take into account carbon emissions
- It is confusing and would not be easily understood
- Difficult to measure
- Need to have robust targets rather than an indicator
- One size does not fit all and not suitable for some areas of Scotland
- Does not reflect the goals of the NTS
- Economic growth and traffic growth are inextricably linked
- Cannot have one indicator in isolation - it needs others to complement it
- Success can be affected by other factors such as weather or terrorism
16.1.3 Other Indicators Suggested by Respondents
Many consultees made their own suggestions for an overall indicator to measure success of the NTS. These included:
- Level of greenhouse gases emissions from transport
- Quantity of car journeys
- Growth in public transport
- Percentage of journeys made by foot or on bike
- Level of deaths and injury
- Individuals ability to access goods and services
- Facilitation of economic growth
- Degree to which NTS has fitted with the Smart, Successful Scotland and the Framework for Economic Development strategies
- Shift in mode away from car use
16.2 The consultation proposed a number of indicators relating to each transport goal. These can be viewed at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/112254/0027311.pdf from pages 76 - 79. The consultation asked:
Q57: Are the indicators outlined for each transport goal useful? If not, what alternative(s) would be preferable?
In total, 105 respondents (33%) addressed this question. In general, more substantive comments were provided by local authority consultees.
Twenty eight respondents stated simply that they agreed that the indicators were potentially useful. Four ( LA, Pub, RTP, Rep Org) commented broadly that they thought more work was needed on the detail of some indicators. One suggested that this could be done by consulting with others (Rep Org).
Four consultees specifically welcomed the use of indicators as opposed to targets ( LA, LA, LA, Rep Org). However, others stressed their view that targets were more appropriate than indicators of progress ( RTP, LA, Pub, Rep Org).
It was urged that the data collected should be robust (Rep Org), accurate (Rep Org) and made widely available to local authorities and Regional Transport Authorities (Rep Org). One respondent considered that the indicators would need to be reviewed during the life of the NTS ( LA).
Many comments were specific to the categories of indicators outlined in the NTS. It could be surmised that those who commented tended to be consultees critical of some aspect of the proposals rather than those who were generally content.
16.2.1 Indicator of the Facilitation of Economic Growth
This proposed indicator attracted more comment than the others.
It was argued that the suggested indicator was too narrow and simplistic ( EC) and that reliability of journey should also be included ( LA, EC). Some consultees considered that journey times need not necessarily reflect increased connectivity ( EB/ ST, LA, LA) or economic growth ( LA). One respondent remarked that in rural areas, number of journey opportunities was equally important ( LA). Two consultees argued that making travel easier and quicker may increase traffic intensity ( LA, EB/ ST).
The need to reflect environmental sustainability of journeys was highlighted ( EB/ ST), along with effectiveness and efficiency of journey ( LA, RTP). It was also recommended that cost of journey be included in the indicator (Pub). One respondent expressed concern that increased connectivity to markets may be detrimental if improvements mean that markets become even further away - thus increasing the need to travel ( LA).
More specific comments were that a Generalised Journey Time Model for internal connectivity to key Scottish cities could be used ( EC); and a representative sample of types of location and generalised cost of travel model would be useful (Oth PB).
Finally, it was pointed out that the Department for Transport has already identified a number of measures to assess international connectivity by air ( EC).
16.2.2 Indicators of the Promotion of Accessibility
This group of indicators also attracted much comment. Whilst one commentator considered the indicators to be reasonable ( LA), another remarked that more work on the proposals was needed ( LA).
It was considered that the indicator of "access to services" was not specific enough ( LA), and should be broken down to encompass separate measures for walking, cycling and public transport ( EB/ ST) and destinations such as local shops/schools ( EB/ ST, EB/ ST), healthcare, fresh food, employment, education or training (Oth PB). Another suggestion was to measure the number of trips made of less than 2-3 miles (the distance that could reasonably be covered by walking or cycling) ( LA). One consultee urged that the affordability of access be incorporated into the indicators ( EC).
Two respondents called for accessibility by cycle to be added to the indicators ( EB/ ST, EB/ ST). Others argued that the level of independent journeys to services which could be made by older people and those with disabilities would be useful to include ( CTG, CTG, Oth PB).
More specific recommendations were for an indicator focusing on the supply of passenger journeys from regeneration areas to areas of economic opportunity ( LA); and for the term "by all economically active people" to follow "job opportunities" ( LA).
It was commented that land-use planning might influence progress on these indicators as much as transport actions ( LA, LA).
16.2.3 Indicators of the Promotion of Choice and the Raising of Awareness of the Need for Change
This category of indicator attracted relatively little comment. The proposals were deemed " reasonable" by one consultee ( LA) and requiring more work by another ( LA). It was suggested that the number of businesses with Travel Plans ( LA), or the number of employees who have changed their travel habits ( LA), could usefully be monitored.
16.2.4 Indicators of the Promotion of Modal Shift
Of the relatively few comments made regarding these indicators, the most common response was to agree with the first 2 suggestions but query the use of average car occupancy as a legitimate indicator. In particular, it was argued that it may be difficult to develop shared car use in the face of increased measures such as flexible working hours (Pub).
A few respondents felt that the modal share indicators were rather blunt and could be disaggregated to focus on, for example, shopping and leisure travel ( EB/ ST) or work and education travel ( LA). It was also suggested that distance travelled should be included in these indicators (Rep Org).
Other comments were that the modal shift for freight should be reflected (Tr Op) and specific mention made of cycle travel (Rep Org). One suggestion was for an indicator focusing on level of road space dedicated to bus lanes ( LA); another was for volume of take-up of the Bus Routes Operators Grant which it was envisaged could be a proxy for increases in bus journeys ( CTG).
16.2.5 Indicators of the Promotion of Cleaner Fuels and Vehicles
A few respondents expressed their support for these indicators ( LA, LA, EB/ ST) although one urged that further discussion to refine them was required ( LA).
Comments from others focused on suggestions for further indicators. These included:
- Proportion of vehicles using cleaner fuels ( LA, EC)
- Number and success of Air Quality Management Areas ( LA)
- Percentage share of alternative fuels in relation to all transport fuel sales in Scotland ( LA)
- Number of clean vehicles sold ( EB/ ST)
- Availability of cleaner fuels ( EB/ ST)
- Progress in utilising certified fuels which meet high environmental standards ( EB/ ST)
- Scotland's contribution to meeting its share of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation target ( EB/ ST)
- Percentage of cars running without adequate servicing (Pub)
A specific comment was made that the third bulleted indicator should refer to emissions per passenger kilometre and not vehicle kilometre (Tr Op, Tr Op, Rep Org).
16.2.6 Indicators of the Management of Demand
Very few respondents addressed the proposal for indicators of the management of demand. One consultee recommended that the indicators should not be confined to travel by road ( LA). Another considered that progress towards the goal would best be measured by a basket of indicators ( LA). One respondent suggested that the indicators specify a range of locations for measurement (Oth PB).
16.2.7 Indicators of the Reduction of the Need for Travel
Again, few respondents addressed the proposals set out. Two consultees stated simply that they agreed with them ( EB/ ST, LA), although another considered that they were not specific enough to enable comment ( LA). Others recommended the inclusion of indicators on average journey times (Acad) or overall distance travelled by person ( LA). One concern was that progress could be masked by a general upward trend in economic and leisure activity (Oth PB).
16.2.8 Targets for the Promotion of Road Safety
Whilst a few consultees agreed with the proposals ( LA, LA), others recommended that new targets should be devised ( LA, RTP), and should reflect vulnerable road user groups ( EB/ ST). It was considered that new targets should include a reduction in pedestrian and cycling accidents ( LA), rural road accidents (Rep Org) and motorcycle accidents (Rep Org).
16.2.9 Other Recommendations for Indicators
Many more recommendations for potential indicators emerged from responses. These included:
- Ensuring that an equality dimension is mainstreamed into the indicators - eg indicators should reflect age, mobility of passenger
- Separate indicators needed for rural and urban areas
- Indicators should be flexible enough to reflect regional variation
- Consideration should be given to separating journeys made for pleasure/tourism from others
Proposals for specific additional indicators included:
- National congestion/reliability indicator and sub-indicators
- Measure of condition and capacity of road and rail transport
- Length of off-road cycle and walking routes
- Safety of transport
- Personal safety and perceived safety
- Number of innovative transport technologies developed in Scotland
- Number of awards for Scottish transport projects
- Public health
- Population change in rural and island areas
- Increased availability of alternative modes
- Freight indicators
- Use of various modes of transport by social class of passenger
- Inward investment in Scotland
One respondent expressed their concern that climate change and biodiversity conservation were not included as goals in the strategy with indicators to measure progress ( EB/ ST). A few others considered that an omission was the users' experience of transport quality. The National Passenger Survey satisfaction measures were highlighted as potentially useful in this regard ( PG). Finally, 2 consultees agreed that users should be asked directly what they wanted from transport (Rep Org, Tr Op), with one respondent describing their perception that:
" significant amounts of public money are being spent on consultancy fees that would be better used in effecting real improvements to transport networks" (Rep Org)
« Previous | Contents | Next »