TfL has issued new guidance on the way boroughs can bid for “Local Implementation Plan” (LIP) and “Liveable Neighbourhood” funding. Away from TfL-led schemes such as Cycle Superhighways and Quietways, these are the biggest funding pots boroughs can access, so for the boroughs they’re really important. And for you they’re a great way of making sure your borough is doing good schemes – because the way TfL is now administering these funding streams is supposed to tie boroughs more closely to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
Below we summarise and quote the sections from the LIP guidance most of use to campaigners who want to make sure boroughs are both maximising their funding allocation and doing their best for cycling and walking. For Liveable Neighbourhood guidance, click here.
“Local Implementation Plans” are TfL’s other main funding stream for borough-led schemes. The “Third LIP guidance” is the most recent document you need. Again, LIPs are now tied to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy objectives. Detail and guidances is here. Our interpretation and key extracts (from the Third LIP Guidance):
LIPs are borough schemes
“2.11 Boroughs are required to identify key opportunities for shifting trips and journey stages to walking, cycling and public transport to contribute to achieving the overarching aim for 80 per cent of trips to be made by active, efficient and sustainable modes by 2041. REQUIREMENT R8”
“2.16 Boroughs are required to set objectives that explicitly assist with meeting the Mayor’s Transport Strategy aim of increasing the sustainable travel mode share. REQUIREMENT R10”
These mandatory requirements mean the borough must be delivering on the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, or its LIP schemes could not just be defunded, but delivered by TfL direct even.
The plan must include:
- “A list of potential schemes up to 2041
- A costed and funded high-level indicative Programme of Investment that covers, by year, the three-year period 2019/20 to 2021/22, with commentary and risks
- A detailed and costed programme of schemes and initiatives for the first year of the plan with supporting commentary and risks
- The impact on their borough of initiatives in the TfL Business Plan; Funding sources for all LIP initiatives, for example, Section 106, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
- Targets against the overarching mode share aim, the nine outcomes and their respective outcome indicators
- A commitment to monitor the delivery indicators.”
Schemes up to 2041 means you can start engaging on and assessing the long-term aims of the borough – is anything missing, is anything unwelcome on that list?
“3.30 Boroughs are required to set targets against the overarching mode share aim and the nine outcomes using their respective outcome indicators. REQUIREMENT R23”
Some of the most relevant outcome indicators are: “All Londoners to do at least 20 minutes’ active travel a day by 2041; 70% of Londoners live within 400m of London-wide strategic cycle network by 2041; “65% reduction in KSIs by 2022 compared to a 2005–09 baseline; 10–15% reduction in volume of traffic by 2041; 5–15% improvement in bus speeds by 2041 London-wide” (full list in Appendix G).
Hold your borough to account on these indicators – are their schemes realistically going to deliver on these targets, to these deadlines?
“4.27 TfL uses the Healthy Streets Check for Designers for all its schemes that have an estimated final cost of £200,000 or above, and which involve any changes to street design… 4.28 TfL recommends that boroughs should follow a similar approach, although as boroughs are likely to lead on a range of smaller transformative schemes ... they may choose to use the Check to show the benefits of a wider range of schemes, at all cost levels.”
Ask for Healthy Streets Check scores for all borough schemes, and particularly all larger, LIP and Liveable Neighbourhood schemes.
Metrics used to check off borough LIP schemes also include stuff like “number of children who received pedestrian skills training” and “number of publicly accessible electric vehicle charging points implemented” in among the good stuff. That means there is still scope for boroughs to push weak schemes – but they should need to justify how such schemes (alone) would achieve the borough targets on mode share etc. Push them on this!