5.07
5.3 SELECTION OF STUDIES FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
For further analysis, J had to restrict my sample to those plans published by county borough councils in England prior to 1972. In other words considering Great Britain as a whole, I have excluded plans relating to counties, non-county borough, urban and rural districts, London, Scotland and Wales and generally plans published after 1972. The reasons for this are as follows. ' 5.3*1 Reasons for excluding plans covering county areas
Prior to the local government re-organisation in 197^i county councils and county borough councils were the major local highway authorities. Most urban transport studies were completed by county borough councils singly or in partnership with neighbouring authorities. The resulting (county borough) transport plans contained the whole of the
administrative area of the town in one plan thus making it simpler to analyse. Plans by county councils on the other hand are more complicated to analyse because these plans are published in sections covering parts of their administrative areas during different time periods.
For instance, Cheshire County Council published as part of the SELNEC Highway Plan its long-term highway strategy for North-East Cheshire.
This plan was..published in 19&2. But plans for the Wirral Peninsula in Cheshire was covered by the Merseyside Area Landusc Transportation
, 2
Study, published m 19»9 • It will be unrealistic to piece together a number of plans published at various times in carrying out implementation analysis for a given administrative area. Furthermore, trunk roads which are essentially determined according to a national strategy, play a prominent role in meeting the local transport requirements in counties. 5.3.2 Reasons for excluding plans published by lower tier authorities
Non-county borough, urban and rural district councils sometimes produced transport plans for their areas to persuade the county councils to
implement them. It is unrealistic to relate the success of implementation of these plans with changes in local factors affecting these authorities since these are not the highway authorities responsible for the
provision of infrastructure. Also the plans produced by these autho rities normally contain only a few distinct schemes and therefore the results are not suitable for division into further analysis.
5.0G
5.3-3 Reasons for excluding plans published by Creator I.orulon Council
The relevant study in this respect is the Greater London Transportation Study. However this study was not published in 1972; the latest time set for inclusion in the sample. The reason for this time limit will be explained later.
Secondly, the responsibility for provision of transport in London is more complex compared with those of the former county borough councils. For instance the llritish Rail plays an independent but important role in determining the local transport needs in parts of London. It is
therefore unrealistic to combine the implementation ratios of former county boroughs with that of London.
Thirdly, the task of calculating implementation ratios for a plan published for London is too formidable for it to be undertaken as part of this research project.
Finally, being the national capital, I suspect that transport decisions in London are not allowed to be determined by local factors to the same extent as those of provincial cities. Therefore the addition of London to the sample is likely to unnecessarily increase the
variations in a correlation analysis.
5*3.^ Reasons for excluding plans published by Scottish and Welsh Authorities Landuse and transport planning functions in Scotland and Wales are undertaken by the respective Secretaries of State for these countries. In England until the early 70s, Central Government decisions relating to the provision of roads were made by the Ministry of Transport while landuse planning functions were undertaken by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Therefore if implementation ratios calculated for urban plans in all these three countries are combined, some of the variations in implementation could be attributed to the differences in the central decision-making processes. My analysis would be. further complicated as a result. Partly for the above reason and partly because of the paucity of urban transport studies published in Scotland and Wales in the pre-reorganisation period, I wished to avoid
including Scottish and Welsh plans.
A further reason for excluding Scottish burghs from my analysis is that financial returns of roads works completed in that country are not readily available in a format sufficiently detailed to calculate implementation ratios.^
5.09
5.3.5 • ton,sons for excluding plans published after 1 9 7 2
In the last four sub-sections I explained my reasons for excluding plans published by county councils, lower-tier authorities, London, Scotland and Wales from further analysis. This has resulted in my analysis being restricted to plans published by former county borough councils in England. However these county boroughs were abolished in
197
^* and most of their transport planning functions transferred to the new county councils.Therefore, I have restricted the analysis of implementation ratios to the period up to 197^. Normally, completion of projects contained in a plan would take about two years from the date of commencement of construction. Therefore, I have decided to exclude county borough plans published after
1972
from implementation analysis.5• '* FURTHER ANALYSIS OF COUNTY BOROUGH PLANS
In chapter three, several key factors affecting the implementation of transport plans were identified. In £ 5*2, it was shown that non trunk road schemes published in urban transport studies were poorly implemented (low FMR) but were not effectively superceded (high EMU). Implementation analysis is a powerful tool for isolating and weighting the influence of the various factors on the implementation of trans port plans. In the next nine chapters, I will use implementation analysis to explain the influence of the various individual factors in bringing about, low rate measure of implementation of transport, plans for county boroughs.
Fig. 5«b6(table) gives cumulative rate measures of implementation up to
197
^ (FMR^ ^) for23
county borough transport plans which are contained in the transportation studies given in Fig. 5.^ (table). The Tyne Wear Plan contains the recommendations for the county3
boroughs of Newcastle upon Tyne, Sunderland, Tynemouth and Gateshead. The Merseyside Area Landuse - Transportation Study (MALTS) contains the plans for Liverpool, Bootle, Birkenhead and Wallasey. The South East Lancashire North East Cheshire (SELNEC) Highway Plan contains the plans for the county boroughs of Manchester, Oldham,
Li.
Bolton, Salford, Rochdale and Bury. Middlesborough is a single county borough contained in the Teeside Survey and Plan. The administrative area of Middlesborough was extended in to include
FIG. 5.08 (TABLE)