Home > Guidelines > Activity 7.2: Prepare an action and budget plan

Activity 7.2: Prepare an action and budget plan

GLOSSARY TERMS

The aim of the SUMP Glossary is to provide a brief explanation of specialist words, terms and abbreviations relating to the subject of sustainable urban mobility planning. The Glossary has been prepared by the CH4LLENGE project and as a result, there is a particular focus on defining terms relating to the four key challenges of plan development studied by the project, namely: participation, cooperation, measure selection and monitoring & evaluation. It is envisaged that, over time, the international community of mobility practitioners will add to the content of the online Glossary and produce versions in different languages.
A simple structure has been followed so that users can search for words, terms and abbreviations in a standard alphabetic format. For each Glossary term, the following information is provided:
• a general definition and, where available, a specific definition relating to transport and mobility planning;
• an explanation of why the term is relevant to sustainable urban mobility planning; and
• references to sources.
The preparation of the Glossary, including the selection of terms and drafting of definitions, has been informed by a review of relevant reports, guidance documents and existing glossaries. The key reference is the European Union “Guidelines - Developing and implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan” prepared for the EC’s Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) programme by Rupprecht Consult (January 2014) and therefore this has not been identified as a source throughout the document. The outputs of the CH4LLENGE project have also provided a principal source of information and the official documents can be found at www.sump-challenges.eu.

Please note that not all the explanatory text is taken directly from the listed sources. The authors have sought to take established definitions and information as the basis and explain these in simple terms and relate them to the context of sustainable urban mobility planning where this was not previously the case.

By Admin Eltis / Updated: 12 Nov 2015

Rationaleinfo-icon

Based on the discussion on responsibilities and funding sources with the concerned actors, a confirmed action and budget plan is needed. It includes a detailed summary of the measures, of established priorities for implementation and of schedules. These specifications will be the basis for smooth implementation of the measures; it needs broad agreement from decision makers and stakeholders and will form a core part of the final plan.

 

Aims

  • Formalise the responsibility of all actors and the resourceinfo-icon contributions with the respective partners.
  • Contain important implementation risks.
  • Ensure clear prioritisation of measures.
  • Provide a clear time horizon for measureinfo-icon implementation.
  • Ensure transparencyinfo-icon around planned actions.

 

Tasks

  • Outline the detailed technical and budgetary planning of measures for a period of 5 years. Cover the longer term with broader indications of plans.
  • Draw up a document that formalises:
    • What is done when by whom and how much the allocated budget is;
    • What are the expected contributions of the measure to the objectives;
    • What will be the funding sources (or possible options if not clear yet);
    • What are the risks and the contingency plans;
    • What is the schedule for measure design and implementation.
  • Achieve formal agreement on the budget and action planinfo-icon among decision makers and key stakeholders.
  • Make responsibilities and allocation of resources public to ensure transparency.

 

Timing and coordination

  • As formal conclusion after discussion on options in > Activity 7.1 Assign responsibilities and resources

 

Checklist

Action and budget plan drafted.
Formal agreement from decision makers and key stakeholders.

 

Examples

West of England: LTP2 – Implementation Programme

The four Councils of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire joined forces to plan and deliver transport improvements in their area for the period 2006 to 2011 through a Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP), based on a visioninfo-icon for the next 20 to 30 years.

The £126.9m worth of measures (£61.173m for investment and £65.745 for maintenance) contained within the plan were based on the financial planning guidelines set out by the Department for Transport in December 2005. They were focused on delivering value for money through making best use of existing infrastructure.

More info: 

West of England: LTP2 – Implementation Programme

The four Councils of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire joined forces to plan and deliver transport improvements in the area for the period 2006 to 2011 through a Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP), based on a visioninfo-icon for the next 20 to 30 years.

The £126.9m worth of measures (£61.173m for investment and £65.745m for maintenance) contained within the plan were based on the financial planning guidelines set out by the Department for Transport in December 2005.

They were focused on delivering value for money through making best use of existing infrastructure. The following table provides an overview of the investment programme (total £61.173m).

Investment Programme: Integrated Transport Spending Programme (£million)

Scheme Type

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

TOTAL

Bus showcase routes and other infrastructure

3.60

2.50

1.20

1.90

3.30

12.50

Number of schemes

180

160

100

150

180

770

Rail

0.10

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.14

0.60

Number of schemes

2

2

2

2

2

10

Park and ride

0.60

1.15

1.10

1.00

1.10

4.95

Number of schemes

0

1

1

1

0

3

Managing traffic congestion:

           

a) UTMC, signals

0.90

1.10

1.15

1.30

1.00

5.45

Number of schemes

25

30

30

35

30

150

b) Parking

0.45

0.35

0.05

0.05

0

0.90

Number of schemes

1

1

1

1

1

5

Walking

0.85

1.20

1.70

1.35

1.35

6.45

Number of schemes

50

65

80

65

65

325

Cycling

0.65

0.90

1.20

1.25

1.20

5.20

Number of schemes

40

60

75

75

75

325

Local safety schemes

1.75

2.44

2.69

2.73

2.77

12.38

Number of schemes

40

45

50

50

50

235

Safer routes

0.90

1.10

1.35

1.45

1.40

6.20

Number of schemes

30

35

40

45

45

195

Local area / smarter choices 1.25 0.85 1.35 1.30 0.75 5.50
Number of schemes 100 70 100 100 60 430
Miscellaneous schemes 0.23 0.13 0.34 0.21 0.12 1.03
Number of schemes 10 5 15 10 5 45
TOTAL 11.28 11.82 12.25 12.68 13.13 61.16