Hertfordshire County Council

Hertfordshire County Council

Local Transport Plan 2

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Strategic Alternatives Assessment

Sustainability Team

Forward Planning Unit

Environment Department

Hertfordshire County Council

County Hall

Hertford

SG13 8DN

Tel: 01992 556296

Fax: 01992 556290

e-mail:

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Background 1

3. SEA Assessment Methodology 3

4. Local Transport Plan 2 Strategic Alternatives 4

4.1 Main strategic alternatives considered and how they were identified 4

4.2 Strategic Alternatives 5

5. Compatibility Analysis 8

6. Alternatives Assessment 12

6.1 Safety Alternatives 12

6.2 Congestion 12

6.3 Accessibility 13

6.4 Environmental 14

6.5 Other 15

Appendix 1: Sustainability Criteria 17

Appendix 2: Strategic Alternatives Assessment Matrices 25

Shared Priority: Safety 26

Shared priority: Congestion 32

Shared Priority: Accessibility 48

Shared Priority: Environmental 58

Shared Priority: Other 67

Appendix 3: Environmental Baseline Data 72

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Main Requirements of the SEA Directive 1

Figure 3.1 SEA objectives 3

Figure 4.1 The sustainable ‘hierarchy’ of alternatives 5

Figure 5.1 Description and index of alternatives 8

Figure 5.2 LTP2 Alternatives – Compatibility Matrix 11

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Shared Priority: Safety 5

Table 4.2 Shared Priority: Congestion 5

Table 4.3 Shared Priority: Accessibility 6

Table 4.4 Shared Priority: Environmental 7

Table 4.5 Other 7

1.  Introduction

A fundamental part of the requirements set out in European Directive 2001/42/EC on Strategic Environmental Assessment is the consideration of alternatives within the plans development. In relation to Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2) the strategic alternatives were described in the scoping report issued in September 2004. This document describes the process undertaken to perform the assessment of these strategic alternatives the results of that assessment and the recommendations on the way forward for LTP2.

2.  Background

The European Directive 2001/42/EC which came into effect at the end of July 2004 now requires local authorities to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of certain plans and programmes. The directive states that plans and programmes that are subject to SEA are those that:

·  Are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level, or are prepared by an authority for adoption through a legislative procedure by Parliament or Government, and

·  Are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions.

The December 2004 guidance on the preparation of Local Transport Plans (second edition), issued by the department for transport, confirmed that SEA would be required for LTP2.

The main objective of the SEA Directive is ‘to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development’. An SEA requires an ‘environmental assessment’ to be carried out, and involves the following procedure:

·  preparing an environmental report on the likely significant effects of the draft plan;

·  carrying out consultation on the draft plan and the accompanying environmental report;

·  taking into account the environmental report and the results of consultation in decision making;

·  providing information when the plan is adopted and showing how the results of the environmental assessment have been taken into account.

Figure 2.1 shows the main requirements of the SEA Directive.

Figure 2.1 Main Requirements of the SEA Directive

Preparing an Environmental Report:
In which the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan are identified, described and assessed. Reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan should also be described. The information to be given is set out in (Article 5 and Annex I):
a) An outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan, and the relationship with other relevant plans and programmes;
b) The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan;
c) The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected;
d) Any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC;
e) The environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or national level, which are relevant to the plan and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation;
f) The likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors. ( These effects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects);
g) The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan;
h) An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required information;
i) A description of measures envisaged concerning monitoring in accordance with Article 10;
j) A non-technical summary of the information provided under the above headings.
The report must include information that may reasonably be required taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment, the contents and level of detail in the plan, its stage in the decision-making process and the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at different levels in that process to avoid duplication of the assessment (Article 5.2)
Consulting:
·  authorities with environmental responsibilities, when deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information which must be included in the Environmental Report (Article 5.4);
·  authorities with environmental responsibilities and the public, to give them an early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on the draft plan and the accompanying Environmental Report before the adoption of the plan (Article 6.1, 6.2);
·  other EU Member States, where the implementation of the plan is likely to have significant effects on the environment in these countries (Article 7).
Taking the Environmental Report and the results of the consultations into account in decision making (Article 8)
Providing information on the decision:
When the plan is adopted, the public and any countries consulted under Article 7 must be informed and the following made available to those so informed:
·  the plan as adopted;
·  a statement summarising how environmental considerations have been integrated into the plan and how the Environmental Report of Article 5, the opinions expressed pursuant to Article 6 and the results of consultations entered into pursuant to Article 7 have been taken into account in accordance with Article 8, and the reasons for choosing the plan as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with; and
·  the measures decided concerning monitoring (Article 9).
Monitoring
The significant environmental effects of the plan's implementation (Article 10).

In preparation for the implementation of the SEA directive in respect of Local Transport Plans Hertfordshire County Council issued a Scoping report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment in September 2004. This report identified the set of sustainability criteria (see figure 3.1) against which the assessment would be undertaken as well as identifying the range of strategic alternatives for the plans development (see tables 4.1 to 4.5).

3.  SEA Assessment Methodology

The first step of the assessment process is to establish a set of SEA objectives. The SEA Directive does not specifically require the use of objectives in the SEA process, but they are a recognised way in which environmental effects can be described, analysed and compared. The SEA objectives derived for the Local Transport Plan 2 were developed from a master set of sustainability appraisal objectives created by the Forward Planning Unit of Hertfordshire County Council and are set out in the Environment Departments guide to Sustainability Assessment. These were consulted on as part of the LTP2 scoping study, however as no comments were received the objectives remain as originally developed.

Figure 3.1 SEA objectives

Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment
·  Improve economic performance and competitiveness consistent with environmental constraints
·  Create a vibrant local economy
·  Maintain high and stable levels of employment
·  Promote lifelong learning and skills development
·  Maintain the vitality and viability of existing centres
Social progress which meets the needs of everyone
·  Tackle the causes of poverty and social exclusion
·  Improve physical and mental health of population and reduce health inequalities
·  Ensure everyone has the opportunity for a decent home
·  Reduce crime and create safe environments
·  Maximise the opportunities for leisure and a healthy lifestyle for all
·  Spread economic growth more evenly to benefit deprived areas
·  Improve access to services and community facilities for all
·  Empower all sections of the community to participate in decision making and local action
Effective protection of the environment and prudent use of natural resources
·  Adhere to environmental standards and management principles
·  Improve the sustainable use of resources
·  Reduce pollution
·  Ensure the sustainable supply and use of energy
·  Move away from waste disposal to minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery
·  Ensure the efficient use of water and safeguard water resources
·  Plan for the impacts of climate change
·  Protect and enhance biodiversity
·  Protect and provide green spaces
·  Ensure the efficient use of land and buildings
·  Protect landscape and townscape character
·  Improve the choice of sustainable transport modes, encourage their use, and reduce the need to travel by car

The SEA directive also requires the establishment of an environmental baseline data set that can be used for the future assessment of options/alternatives and the plan policies and proposals. This environmental baseline data set is required to look at the likely effects of the plan in relation to its specific policies and programmes as well as the effects of the plan on the wider environmental issues as prescribed in the EU directive. This means that the plan must look at its effects in the areas set out in figure 2.1 point f. This baseline is still incomplete and is being added to, but is included in its current state in appendix 3.

The assessment of the strategic alternatives being proposed for LTP2 uses this baseline data to try to ascertain the extent of the issues being identified as well as the likely impact upon the baseline of the application of the alternatives being considered. Full detail of the assessment can be found in the assessment matrices that are included in appendix 2 and the key findings are described in section 6 of this report along with recommendations on the way forward.

4.  Local Transport Plan 2 Strategic Alternatives

4.1 Main strategic alternatives considered and how they were identified

The nine Local Transport Plan objectives are considered to be the options that will deal with the transport issues and problems in the county, and these objectives have already been reviewed and consulted on for the development of LTP2. It is this set of options that have had a number of alternatives identified. The alternatives were identified internally by officers, who also took into account ideas and issues raised by stakeholders and the public in previous rounds of LTP consultation. The transport plan alternatives are at a broad strategic level, and are alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the plan. Each alternative should fit within the sustainable ‘hierarchy’ of alternatives set out below in figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 The sustainable ‘hierarchy’ of alternatives

Need or demand: is it necessary?

Can the need or demand for accessibility be met without new development/ infrastructure at all? Can the need to Travel be obviated?

Mode or process: how should it be done?

Are there technologies or methods that can meet the need with less environmental/ sustainability damage than ‘obvious’ or traditional methods?

Location: where should it go?

Timing and detailed implementation:

When, and in what sequence, should developments be carried out? What details matter, and what requirements should be made about them?

4.2 Strategic Alternatives

The tables below show the alternatives identified for each of the nine LTP objectives (categorised by the DfT shared priorities). For each alternative the relationship to the ‘alternatives hierarchy’ has also been given.

Table 4.1 Shared Priority: Safety

Objective / To improve safety for all by giving the highest priority to minimising the number of collisions and injuries occurring as a result of the transport system.
Current Approach / Systematic approach to accident recording and corresponding programme of safety engineering schemes at sites with the highest levels of recorded accidents. Programme supported by accident reduction measures incorporated into wider schemes, by education, training and publicity, Safety Camera Partnership, and school crossing patrol service.
Alternative 1 / Introduction of lower speed limits countywide, with rigorous enforcement. (Need or demand)
Alternative 2 / Concentration on non-engineering measures only, with corresponding increase in funding for education, training and publicity programmes and in enforcement measures.
(Need or demand)
Alternative 3 / Engineering-led approach, with physical separation of modes.
(Location)

Table 4.2 Shared Priority: Congestion

Objective / To obtain the best use of the existing network through effective design, maintenance and management.
Current Approach / Capital maintenance and improvement led approach, with programmed management of road space.
Alternative 1 / Revenue/operational-led approach to maintenance and improvements. (Timing & detailed implementation)
Objective / To manage the growth of transport and travel volumes across the county, and thereby secure improvements in the predictability of travel time”.
Current Approach / Multi-aspect approach, including measures to encourage shift away from car journeys, links to land use planning to minimise the need to travel, and traffic and network management to reduce congestion.
Alternative 1 / Single-aspect approach, which could be one of the following:
·  Reduce traffic volumes by comprehensive programme of demand management measures such as road user charging and workplace parking charges and general restriction of parking spaces. (Need or demand)
·  To invest in major new road capacity, but suppress new demand by measures such as road user charging. (Mode or process)
·  Major investment in public transport measures such as increasing road space dedicated to buses and investing in more services. (Mode or process)
Objective / To develop an efficient, safe, affordable and enhanced transport system which is attractive, reliable, integrated and makes best use of resources.
Current Approach / Pro-active asset management approach and promoting passenger transport integration and partnerships e.g. Intalink
Alternative 1 / Operate a ‘silo’ approach to working i.e. not working with other partners. (Mode or process)
Alternative 2 / Devote resources to lobbying for changes in legislation to allow a more co-ordinated approach e.g. integrated bus tickets.
(Need or demand)
Alternative 3 / Reactive approach i.e. attempting to fill in the gaps that the commercial sector has not provided. (Mode or process)

Table 4.3 Shared Priority: Accessibility