freight quality partnerships in the uk – an analysis of ... · freight quality partnerships in...
TRANSCRIPT
Freight Quality Partnerships in the UK – an analysis of their work and achievements
June 2010
J. Allen, M. Browne, M.Piotrowska and A. Woodburn
[email protected]@[email protected]@westminster.ac.uk
www.westminster.ac.uk/transport
Transport Studies DepartmentUniversity of WestminsterLondon
Freight Quality Partnerships in the UK – an analysis of their work and achievements
Report produced as part of the Green Logistics Project: Work Module 9 (Urban Freight Transport)
Allen, J., Browne, M., Piotrowska, M. and Woodburn, A.
University of Westminster
Final version
June 2010
Acknowledgements: The research reported in this document was funded by the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council as part of the University of Westminster’s contribution to the Green Logistics project, and by Transport for London as part of the University of Westminster’s contribution to the London Freight Data and Knowledge Centre. We would like to thank the TfL Freight Unit for their considered input to this report.
Further details of the Green Logistics project can be found at:
http://www.greenlogistics.org
Further details of the Transport for London Freight Unit can be found at:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/freight/1284.aspx
CONTENTS
Page No.
1. Introduction
1
2. Background to FQPs 3 2.1 FQPs in the UK 3 2.2 Other public-private sector initiatives in the UK 4 2.3 Similar freight partnership initiatives in other countries 4 2.4 Studying the actions and effectiveness of FQPs in the UK
5
3. Literature review – overview of FQPs in the UK 9 4. Survey of FQPs in the UK 13 4.1 Survey methodology 13 4.2 Survey response rate 13 4.3 Survey analysis 14 5, Survey results – Structure of FQPs 15 5.1 Type of FQPs 15 5.2 Composition of FQPs 16 5.3 Aims and objectives of FQPs 18 5.4 Resourcing of FQPs 19 6. Survey results – Work and achievements of FQPs 21 6.1 Activities of FQPs 21 6.2 Topics addressed by FQPs 23 6.3 Outputs of FQPs 25 6.4 Most important achievements of FQPs 27 6.5 Partnership working between public and private sectors in FQPs 29 7. Survey results – Challenges, failings, lessons learned, and
learning from other FQPs 31
7.1 Greatest challenges faced by FQPs 31 7.2 Failings of FQPs 32 7.3 Most important lessons learned by FQPs 32 7.4 Learning from the knowledge and experience of other FQPs 35 8. Survey results - Views on FQPs concept and approach in the UK
in general 39
8.1 Views on the FQP approach 39 8.2 Partnership working between public and private sectors 40 8.3 Value for money provided by the FQP approach 41 8.4 Actions that could be taken by central government to assist in FQP work 43 9. Concluding remarks 45 9.1 Evaluating the work of FQPs 45 9.2 The potential value of national research and guidance to inform FQPs: the
example of freight mapping 46
9.3 Knowledge and information sharing between FQPs - the role of central government and other national organisations
46
9.4 Short-term versus long-term FQPs 47 9.5 Local authority-run versus consultancy-run FQPs 48 9.6 Single v multiple LTP area FQPs 48 9.7 Funding and resourcing of FQPs 48 9.8 Surveying a wider group of FQP members 48
References 49 Appendix 1: Summary of views on FQPs expressed in written evidence to
House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008 51
Appendix 2: List of FQPs identified in the UK 53 Appendix 3: FQP Questionnaire 60
1. Introduction This report investigates Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) in the UK. It attempts to establish the number and type of FQPs that exist, their structure, their aims and objectives, their activities and outputs, their challenges, successes and failings, and the extent to which they work with and learn from each other. Through survey work, the study has also sought the views of those directly involved in the operation and management of FQPs about the FQP concept, whether they have improved partnership working between the public and private sector, the value for money that they provide, and actions that central government and other organisations could take to improve their success and effectiveness. Freight transport and logistics comprises many different stakeholders with diverse interest (including policy makers, retailers, wholesalers, freight operators, warehousing companies, residents, shoppers and workers). The global movement of people, goods and information has further accelerated the extent of diversification, which improves our standard of living, for example, by offering the consumer many choices. However, public sector decision-making has required efforts to coordinate these activities to ensure that they function efficiently, while at the same time minimising the social and environmental impacts associated with them. In order to attempt to reach democratic decisions that will achieve these objectives, policy makers have been working closely with other stakeholders on a range of urban freight transport issues. Ogden (1992) argues that the urban freight system is far more complex and heterogeneous than urban passenger transport. This complexity and heterogeneity is driven by certain key features of urban goods movement, one of which is the range of participants involved in urban freight and the range of perceptions they hold of the "urban freight problem". Such complexity can make it difficult to develop successful working partnerships between the public and privates sectors in the field of freight transport. As Lowndes (2001) noted, “Partnership refers to a variety of arrangements with different purposes, time-scales, structures, operating procedures and members. A partnership may simply be a means of ‘getting people together’ to begin a debate or share information, or it may be a policy-making forum, or even a contractually-based arrangement for service delivery.” Lowndes (2001) put forward three reasons for the increased use of partnership by policy makers in a range of contexts (see Box 1). National and local governments have not traditionally had a very good track record in involving freight and logistics actors in problem resolution and policy considerations. Instead participation of such groups in policy-making has been often kept to a limited consultation exercise at best. However, this has begun to change in the UK in the last decade, especially as interest in urban distribution has grown among policy makers and they have decided that a more inclusive approach is likely to result in more efficient and sustainable outcomes. This has been achieved through the promotion by central government of the concept of “Freight Quality Partnerships” (FQPs), and the establishment of many such FQPs at regional and local levels. These FQPs aim to bring together the public and private sector parties involved in freight transport and logistics to discuss problems, and identify and implement solutions with the intention of improving the sustainability of freight transport activities in an economic, social and environmental sense.
1
Box 1: Reasons for the increased use of partnership by policy makers
“Efficiency – Multi-agency partnerships can be a way of making better use of existing resources through reducing duplication and sharing overheads among different local agencies (as in social care); they can also ‘add value’ by bringing in new providers and fostering innovation (as in education); and they can be a means of levering in new resources through gaining access to grant regimes requiring collaboration.”
Integration - Multi-agency partnerships can be a way of securing greater integration within an increasingly fragmented organisational landscape. Partnership arrangements can work to ‘join up’ dispersed service providers, whilst also harnessing the distinct contributions that different agencies can make to meeting diverse and complex local needs, and to tackling social exclusion.”
Accountability – In the context of declining turn-out in local elections and low levels of interest in local politics, partnership arrangements can be a means of securing new forms of accountability for public services. Where community groups and business interests are involved in crime prevention partnerships (for instance), they are better able to hold local service providers to account, and to communicate their own views and experiences to decision-makers.”
Source: Lowndes, 2001 Section 2 introduces the background to FQPs and the support and promotion of the concept by central government. It also explains other types of higher level freight partnerships in the UK that, while not FQPs, operate in a similar manner and perform a similar role. A review of freight partnerships in other countries is also provided. Finally, the existing information about the efficiency and success of FQPs in the UK is considered. Section 3 presents the results of the literature review of FQPs in the UK which was carried out as part of the study. This includes details of the total number and type of FQPs identified, and the year in which the FQP was formed and ended (if appropriate). Section 4 explains the purpose and methodology of the FQP survey that was carried out. Section 5 contains results of the type, composition, objectives and resourcing of the FQPs participating in the survey work. Section 6 contains results of the activities, topics addressed, outputs, most important actions, and effectiveness of partnership working among the FQPs participating in the survey work. Section 7 contains results concerning the challenges, failings, and lessons learned the FQPs participating in the survey work. Section 8 contains results of the survey respondents’ views in general (rather than specifically in relation to the FQP that they are involved in) on the FQP concept, partnership working between public and private sectors in FQPs, value for money providing by FQPs, and actions that could be taken by central government and other organisations to assist in making FQPs more successful and effective. Section 9 contains some thoughts and concluding remarks based on the work carried out and especially the survey results.
2
2. Background to FQPs 2.1 FQPs in the UK Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) are a UK approach to freight transport partnerships between the public and private sectors that were launched by the Freight Transport Association (FTA) in 1996. The FTA initiative brought together industry, local government and representatives of local and environmental interest groups to pursue the following agenda (FTA, 1997): To identify problems perceived by each interest group relating to the movement and
delivery of goods in their city,
To identify measures within the group’s competence to resolve or alleviate such problems,
To identify best practice measures and principles for action by local government and industry to promote environmentally sensitive, economic and efficient delivery of goods in towns and cities.
The FQP initiative was tested in four UK urban areas in 1996: Aberdeen, Birmingham, Chester and Southampton (FTA, 1997). The UK Government has been promoting FQPs since 1999 (DETR, 1999; DfT 2003a and 2003b). FQPs can facilitate improved dialogue about urban freight transport issues between local authorities, freight transport companies, retailers, manufacturers and other businesses, local residents and other interested parties. This can lead on to more efficient, less harmful operations. In their guidance document the government states that, "Freight Quality Partnerships provide local authorities with a means to formalise the consultation and development work undertaken in their sustainable distribution strategy. Authorities have an integral role to play in helping industry, through developing partnerships to progress and develop best practice in sustainable distribution systems, and to find solutions to the issues of greatest concern" (DETR, 2000). These UK government views about FQPs were recently reiterated, when it was stated that, “There are many areas where local authorities are demonstrating significant leadership on freight issues…..particularly through local authority involvement with industry in Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs). These partnerships can play a significant role in developing understanding between parties with different apparent self interests and often lead to outcomes that satisfy the needs of all parties. The best FQPs produce tangible benefits through implementing informed decisions” (DfT, 2008a). The Scottish Executive is equally keen for local authorities to establish FQPs, stating that “consideration should be given to partnership working between the local authority and the freight sector to improve delivery systems. Such partnership working can be taken forward effectively through the formation of Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) and the Executive encourages and supports the development of FQPs in Scotland. The partnerships bring together local authorities, business and environmental groups as well as operators of all modes of transport to improve the sustainable distribution of freight. The aim of the partnerships….is to increase efficiency in delivery whilst at the same time protecting communities from environmentally unfriendly practice” (Scottish Executive, 2005). FQPs are a means for local policy makers, businesses, freight operators, environmental groups, the local community and other interested stakeholders to work together to address specific freight transport problems. The FQP provides a forum to achieve good practice in
3
environmentally sensitive, economic, safe and efficient freight transport. The partners can exchange information, experiences and initiate projects regarding urban freight transport. The purpose of FQPs ranges from regional planning, to city- or town-specific partnerships, to micro-level partnerships (maybe concerned with a few streets), to issue specific partnerships. FQPs can be formed to address any type of geographical area, though the majority cover urban areas. They are usually established by local authorities (county councils, passenger transport authorities and unitary authorities) that have responsibility for submitting Local Transport Plans (LTPs) in England and Wales, Local Implementation Plans in London boroughs, and Local Transport Strategies in Scotland. 2.2 Other public-private sector initiatives in the UK In addition to the FQPs that have been established at anything from a local to regional scale, there have also been initiatives at the national scale that bring together the public and private sectors to discuss and attempt to resolve freight transport issues. The “Road Haulage Forum” was set-up in 1999 by the Chancellor and Transport Minister as “the principal interface between Government and the road haulage industry…. to give the haulage industry the opportunity to air issues of concern with Ministers. Government has also been able to use the Forum to convey messages to the industry, notably in seeking help with delivery of objectives relating to the environment, safety and congestion” (DfT, 2009). The Forum meets on an ad hoc basis and its membership is at the discretion of Ministers. This tends to comprise the Transport Minister, DfT and Treasury representatives, representatives of the devolved Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland administrations, Skills for Logistics, representatives of key trade associations (Freight Transport Association and Road Haulage Association), the chief executive of a haulage company, and Trade Union representatives. The most recent minutes of its meeting on the DfT website are from November 2006, suggesting that it may not have met since then. The opposition Conservative party established the “Shadow Road Haulage Forum” in September 1999. This was intended “as a means for real hauliers, rather than representative organisations, to express their opinions to politicians and the media. The haulage industry was concerned that the government had held just three meetings of their own Road Haulage Forum, each chaired by a different transport minister, and that there was no apparent evidence that the government was any more aware of the problems facing real hauliers” (Shadow Road Haulage Forum, 2000). However there is no evidence that this body has continued to meet on a regular basis. The Northern Ireland Road Freight Forum (NIRFF) was established in 2004. It “exists to provide a conduit between the Government in Northern Ireland and representatives of the freight industry” (Armstrong, 2009). It is chaired by an official from Department of the Environment and includes representation from the industry, other Government Departments and interested parties. It meets quarterly and seeks to address many freight transport issues. Issues considered to date include weighbridges, enforcement, illegal operators, new legislation, training, and drivers hours. NIRFF continues to meet to discuss new and changing issues. 2.3 Similar freight partnership initiatives in other countries During the mid-1990s in the Netherlands, the national government became aware that co-operation with the private sector was very important in successfully implementing public policies. The national government therefore sought co-operation with the private sector and began to develop policies in full consultation with the private sector, in order to create win-
4
win situations. This has meant that instead of implementing regulations, local, regional and national governments now sign covenants with organisations representing business or directly with businesses. In these covenants the private sector agrees to behave in a particular way, while the public sector either provides facilities, finance, or reassesses and alters regulations. The policy agenda of Platform Stedelijke Distributie (PSD or the Forum for Physical Distribution in Urban Areas) in the Netherlands was developed in co-operation with both the public and private sector. The implementation of the policy required the public and private sector to work together in a partnership (Bockel, 2002). PSD operated as a consultation platform between the national government and the private sector for nine years (1995-2004). However, national government involvement and support for PSD was withdrawn in 2004 following a review that found it had achieved insufficient policy outcomes (Visser, 2004). However partnership working between the public and private sector continues in the Netherlands firstly through the Commissie Stedelijke Distributie (Commission for Urban Distribution) (2005-2008) which continued the work of PSD in encouraging joint working between urban authorities and the private sector to reach binding agreements on freight transport issues. In 2009 an Ambassador of Urban Distribution has been appointed to continue the work of the Commission in assisting and adjudicating in any disputes between the public and private parties (Ambassadeur Stedelijke Distributie, 2009). The Japanese national government authorised a set of policies for freight transport entitled ‘The New Comprehensive Program of Logistics Policies’ in 2001, which was the revised version of the former program, first launched in 1996. Urban freight transport is considered an important area in which to achieve efficient and environmentally friendly logistics systems in Japan. Two quantitative targets were set on ‘the load factor of trucks’ and ‘peak-hour average travel speed’ in three major metropolitan areas. In order to realise these targets, the program highlighted the importance of co-ordination between public and private sectors, and between national and local governmental agencies, among others. This is why the program requested the local agencies to establish an independent organisation to plan local logistics policies, and new round tables to exchange information on local logistics policies inviting private representatives from bodies representing carriers and retailers (Browne et al., 2004). Freight partnerships between the public and private sectors similar to FQPs have also been established in Canada, Australia, and the USA. In Canada these are referred to as “Freight Stakeholder Partnerships” (FSP), in Australia as “Freight Councils”, and in the USA as “Freight Advisory Committees” (Canadian Urban Institute, 2004). In each case, this involves “a process that brings together representative players with a stake in the efficient movement of freight in urban areas. These range from transportation carriers to logistics specialists and the operators of major facilities such as airports, marine, and rail terminals to users such as retailers and manufacturers. Public policy makers are also involved, and FSPs typically emphasise direct links to decision makers responsible for infrastructure planning and operations” (Canadian Urban Institute, 2004). 2.4 Studying the actions and effectiveness of FQPs in the UK There has been little effort to study the effectiveness of FQPs and their achievements since their inception in 1996. However many FQPs have been established throughout the country and a substantial amount of public funding has been allocated to them. Discussions with the Freight and Logistics Division of the DfT in the initial stages of this research confirmed that the DfT has not carried out any of its own analysis of the effectiveness of FQPs and does not maintain a database of FQPs that have been established and their current status and achievements.
5
The only reports that have considered progress by local authorities in achieving sustainable distribution have been carried out as part of the review of Local Transport Plan (LTP) achievements commissioned by the DfT (as sustainable distribution is included as one of the aspects in the LTP process. The interim review of LTP1 found that there had been “little development on measures to encourage sustainable distribution of freight, beyond the production of Lorry Route maps, route signage and consideration of freight vehicles in conventional traffic management schemes. This is an area which may receive more attention in LTP2” (Atkins, 2005). The final report on the review of LTP1 and the introduction of LTP2 concluded that, “the effectiveness of Freight Quality Partnerships has been questioned by a range of stakeholders” (Atkins et al, 2007). In a survey of local authorities carried out, only 21% of respondents stated that they had made good or very good progress in their LTP policies in terms of sustainable distribution/freight objectives (a major strand of which was implementing and running FQPs), with 46% describing their progress as fair, and 31% as poor or very poor (Atkins et al, 2007). However, DfT draft statutory guidance on LTP3 continues to recommend developing and extending FQPs as a suitable approach to achieving sustainable distribution objectives (DfT, 2008b). The House of Commons Transport Committee conducted an inquiry into Freight Transport in 2007/8 (House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008). A small part of this inquiry was concerned with the effectiveness of FQPs in “improving the local experience of freight and deliveries”. Witnesses appearing in person at this Transport Committee inquiry suggested that FQPs are a good way to ensure interested parties work together on freight issues and understand one another’s perspectives (House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008). The Select Committee was of the opinion that, “Freight Quality Partnerships are increasingly facilitating productive communication between freight operators, businesses and local residents” (House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008). Some of the organisations submitting written evidence to this Transport Committee inquiry provided thoughts and views on FQPs. Relevant extracts of the submissions by each organisation are provided in Appendix 1. These have been summarized into the points shown in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 on: i) the achievements of FQPs, and ii) the aims, structure and resourcing of FQPs. Table 2.1 has been organised into positive and neutral/negative comments.
6
Table 2.1: Summary of views on achievements of FQPs expressed in written evidence to House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008
Positive comments Neutral and negative comments
Potential to greatly improve local freight conditions.
FQPs can help bridge the gap between public and private sectors.
FQPs have been satisfactory at dealing with a number of local and tactical issues.
The FQP follow on has been really impressive by linking groups of well meaning people to work together for a common objective.
In many cases, they provide a valuable forum for an honest, informed and focused discussion, for thrashing out local issues.
They highlight at an early stage initiatives from local authorities that might have adverse affects that had not been realised.
London’s FQPs are effective in improving the local experience of freight and deliveries.
The key attributes of FQPs is that they are flexible and “local”, working on an appropriate scale to achieve local results.
Some of the FQPs work well; others are less effective.
The effect that FQPs are having could be seen as limited but this is possibly because expectations for them are set too high.
Local authority transport officers are keen to promote freight but struggle to overcome political obstacles because locally elected members will always tend to prioritise passenger transport.
As we would expect FQPs have achieved a mixed range of results with some more successful than others.
FQPs can be effective in improving the local experience of freight and deliveries but only when decisions are based on clear evidence of current freight operational practices, relevant stakeholder groups are engaged and that engagement maintained over the longer term and where the resultant “call to action” to the freight industry is communicated effectively and repeatedly.
FQPs also tend to encourage road solutions to road problems, a fact which is likewise connected to their scale.
Rail freight has not seen any significant benefit from freight quality partnerships. They have tended to be local in focus whilst rail tends to focus on the medium and long distance traffics.
FQPs are primarily concerned with local issues of such scale as to not be relevant to rail operations, which are by their nature on a greater geographical scale.
Source: quoted in House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008.
7
Table 2.2: Summary of views on aims, structure, and resourcing of FQPs expressed in written evidence to House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008
Aims and objectives of FQPs
Through involvement in local and multiple area agreements they have the potential to play a much wider role in supporting both local and national economies, which will lead to a greater appreciation of the essential task that freight performs.
Their (FQPs) brief has been narrow and now it should be widened and supported more by central government
Structure and actions of FQPs
Successful FQPs need to be formed via a bottom-up approach (i.e. by the boroughs involved)
The solutions needed….require input at a much higher level to be successful
FQPs would benefit from stronger political will and appreciation of the role of road haulage
FQPs should meet by exception rather than on a regular basis, regardless of the extent or urgency of issues to be discussed (should not meet without clear need).
FQPs require the ability to deliver solutions otherwise they become a lobbying and consultative group.
Funding / resourcing issues
Local authorities are hamstrung when it comes to freight improvements due to a lack of resources -in personnel and funds to distribute.
Official referencing of Freight Quality Partnerships would lead to greater certainty of public sector funding.
As FQPs develop and engage with more complex issues, there is no reason why they shouldn’t act as a conduit for private sector funding, for both their core administration costs, as well as the programmes that they promote.
Geographical coverage of FQPs
Recommend greater focus on the non-metropolitan areas Source: quoted in House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008. . Although the House of Commons Transport Committee inquiry into Freight Transport in 2008 only provided limited insight into FQPs, the views expressed by those participating in the inquiry are a helpful indicator of some of the strengths and weaknesses of FQPs in the UK, and provide some thoughts on issues concerning the aims, structure and resourcing of FQPs.
8
3. Literature review – overview of FQPs in the UK In 2003 the FTA reported that there were 114 FQPs in the UK, 49 of which had made some progress and 65 of which were dormant (either never having made any progress since being mentioned in a Local Transport Plan (LTP) or which had become dormant after a period of activity) (Jackson, 2003). In 2008 the FTA hosted the “FQP of the Year” award and reported that more than 100 FQPs had been either set up or an intention expressed to do so in the UK over the last ten years (FTA, 2008). However, the information available from the FTA did not state how many of these were currently, or ever, active. Unfortunately the FTA were unable to provide further details about these 100-plus FQPs when they were approached by the project team as part of our research project. As part of our research we carried out a literature review of FQPs (both document-based and web-based). This review aimed to identify FQPs that had been set up in the UK regardless of whether or not they were still in existence (some use different titles such as “freight forum”, “freight group”, or “transport group” but serve the same purpose as an FQP). The review did not include FQPs that had been mentioned in LTP submissions but which were never actually set up. This literature review of FQPs served two purposes: i) it provided details of FQPs that the questionnaire survey could be sent to (see section 3.2), and ii) it provided basic information about FQPs that did not respond to the survey so that it would be possible to obtain insight into the total number and type of FQPs in the UK. The information sought about each FQP identified in the literature review included: the year in which the FQP was formed, whether or not the FQP seemed to still be in existence, the year in which the FQP ceased operating (if no longer in existence), the type of FQP (the focus and geographical coverage of the FQP, together with whether
it covered one or more LTP areas). A full listing of all the FQPs identified in the literature review together with information about each FQP is provided in Appendix 2. This information (especially start and end dates) may not be entirely accurate in all cases but is the best that could be achieved via a literature review. It is also likely that there are some FQPs that were set up and that have since ceased operating that we were unable to identify in the literature. We identified 87 FQPs have been set up in the UK since the inception of FQPs in 1996 (this does not include FQPs that were mentioned by local authorities in LTPs but which were never subsequently established). It is possible to classify various types of FQP. The DfT included the following types in their guide to setting up an FQP in 2003 (DfT, 2003a): Regional Strategic Partnership, Local Transport Plan Area Wide, Local distribution – town, city or local area, Company or location specific, Issue specific.
9
For the purposes of our research we adopted a similar classification to the DfT but have adapted it a little. There are several differences between our classification and that used by the DfT: i. in the DfT classification there is no type of FQP between an LTP Area Wide FQP and a
Regional Strategic Partnership. However there are quite a few FQPs that cover areas larger than a single LTP area but which do not cover an entire region. For example, the LTP authorities that comprise Greater Manchester have established an FQP. We have referred to these FQPs as “sub-regional”. These FQPs therefore refer to major cities and their surroundings only.
ii. in the DfT classification a “local distribution” FQP is defined as covering a town, city or
local area. This could therefore range from a few streets or very small urban area right up to an entire city. FQPs at each end of this spectrum will vary significantly in the breadth of their concerns and issues. In addition, a city may in fact be an LTP area – therefore such an FQP could be classified as either type. We have therefore not used LTP areas as a means by which to classify FQPs and have instead replaced “LTP Area Wide” and “local distribution” with two types of FQP, “Part of urban area” and “Town or city”.
iii. We have included three additional types of FQP that combine a mix of urban and rural
freight transport issues: i) ii) “County-wide” (which is an FQP established by a single county-wide transport authority, ii) “Entire town or city and county-wide” (which is an FQP that has been established between a county council and a town/city with its own LTP responsibilities) and “Part of a county or unitary authority (rural and urban)” (which is an FQP established by a county council that covers part of a county, or by a unitary authority that covers a mixed urban and rural area.
iv. We have also used “Rural area” as an additional type as some FQPs do not focus on
urban areas.
We have therefore used the following ten FQP types in our classification: Regional, Sub-regional, County-wide, Entire town or city and county-wide, Entire town or city, Part of urban area, Part of a county or unitary authority (rural and urban), Rural area, Site-specific, Issue-specific. In the case of London there are several FQPs that each cover several boroughs (i.e. Central London, West London, South London and Thames Gateway) as well as a London-wide FQP (the London Sustainable Distribution Partnership). London is considered to be a region in its own right in central government regional data, therefore we have categorised the London-wide FQP as regional, and the London FQPs that cover several boroughs as sub-regional (which is how they refer to themselves). It could be argued that the latter could be defined as “part of an urban area” FQPs. However given the geographical area they cover and the size of population and businesses community within each they are unlike any other FQP that has been classified as covering ““part of an urban area”.
10
Issue-specific FQPs include those dealing with forest timber transport, quarry/construction material transport, sea ports, and airports. Figure 3.1 shows the split of the 87 FQPs identified across the types of FQP defined above. The two most common types are “entire town or city” and “county-wide” FQPs. These are followed in number by issue-specific FQPs, and then regional and sub-regional FQPs. The least common type are rural FQPs, of which only two were identified. Figure 3.1: FQPs identified in the UK by type
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Issue specific
Site specific
Rural area
Part of county / unitary authority (rural & urban)
Part of an urban area
Entire town or city
Entire town or city and county-wide
County-wide
Sub-regional
Regional
Number of FQPs
Table 3.1 shows the breakdown of the 87 FQPs in terms of whether or not they are still in existence. Table 3.1: Current status of FQPs identified in the UK
Current status of FQP Number of FQPs identified
Still operating 58
No longer operating 25
Thought to be no longer operating 4
Total 87
Of the 58 FQPs still operating, 10 of these had been dormant for a period of a year or longer at some point since their inception. The definition of “still operating” that we have used in classifying the FQPs requires clarification. Unless we have determined that the FQP has definitely ceased operating we have assumed that it is still operating. The level of activity between FQPs that are “still operating” is likely to vary widely, with some meeting very rarely or not having met for a long time but still in existence. Table 3.2 shows, in two-year periods, when the 87 FQPs identified were established. This demonstrates that relatively few FQPs were established prior to 2000. The period in which the number of FQPs established peaked was 2000-2003. In 2008-2009 the number of FQPs
11
established was lower than in any other previous two-year period. Table 3.2 suggests that the rate of formation of new FQPs in the UK is now in decline. Table 3.2: Periods in which FQPs were established in the UK
Periods in which FQP was established
Number of FQPs identified
1996-1997 6
1998-1999 7
2000-2001 24
2002-2003 17
2004-2005 8
2006-2007 13
2008-2009 4
Not known 8
Total 87
Table 3.3 provides details of whether the geographical focus of the FQPs identified is urban, rural or both. Table 3.3: Geographical focus of FQPs identified in the UK
Geographical focus of FQP Number of FQPs identified
Urban 38
Urban and rural 36
Predominantly rural 10
Rural 3
Total 87
Table 3.4 shows whether the FQPs are based in a single LTP area or encompass more than one LTP area. Those that cover greater then one LTP area require more partnership working between public sector organisations. Table 3.4: LTP area coverage of FQPs identified in the UK
LTP area coverage of FQP Number of FQPs identified
Single LTP area 57
Multiple LTP areas 30
Total 87
12
4. Survey of FQPs in the UK 4.1 Survey methodology As mentioned in the previous section, a questionnaire survey was designed to investigate FQPs in the UK. The questionnaire was intended for those responsible for running FQPs and contained sections on: General information about the FQP, Work and achievements of the FQP, Resourcing of the FQP, Respondents’ views on the FQP concept and approach in the UK. The questionnaire was sent to all FQPs identified during the initial literature review. It was sent to the person identified as running the FQP and was conducted by email. Email addresses were obtained from the literature review, as well as from contact information provided by the FTA (FTA, 2009). Questionnaires were usually completed by the person responsible for the FQP on a day-to-basis. This was in some cases a local government officer, and in others a consultant, depending on the way in which the FQP was run. The responses provided are therefore the views of the individual completing the questionnaire rather than necessarily reflecting the views of the entire FQP membership. Non-responses were followed up with telephone calls to ask if the questionnaire had been received and to check whether a response could be provided. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 3. The questionnaire survey was carried out between May and July 2009. 4.2 Survey response rate Seventy nine FQPs were identified in the initial literature review, and 60 questionnaires were sent out1. We identified 87 FQPs by the end of the literature review and survey work. By the end of the survey work we had received completed questionnaires from a total of 34 FQPs. Twenty of these were returned without the need for a follow-up. An additional 14 FQP responses were obtained as a result of non-response follow-up. Non-responses were followed up by telephone call. Reasons for non-response included: The questionnaire had been sent to someone who was no longer responsible for the
FQP (in some cases these non-responses were translated into responses when the questionnaire was resent to another identified respondent),
The FQP had ceased to exist and it was not possible to identify the relevant person to complete the questionnaire,
The recipient not having sufficient time available to complete the questionnaire, Lack of interest from the recipient. Given the length of the questionnaire, the detailed information that it requested, and the fact that 29 FQPs identified are no longer operating, the response rate was felt to be good (34
1 The reason that the number of questionnaires sent out was less than the number of FQPs initially identified (i.e. 60 questionnaires for 79 FQPs) is because in several cases a single local authority was involved in or responsible for more than one FQP.
13
out of 87 FQPs identified). The quantity and quality of information provided by respondents was generally high. 4.3 Survey analysis The questionnaire responses were analysed using Excel. The results of the survey are presented in sections 5 - 8. It should be noted that not all 34 FQP respondents answered every question. Therefore the sample size for each particular question is shown as a total in the final row of a table or as a note under each particular table of figure.
14
5. Survey results – Structure of FQPs 5.1 Type of FQPs Table 5.1 shows the types of FQP that responded to the questionnaire using the categories discussed previously in section 3. It also shows the total number of each type of FQP identified during the literature review. This reflects that there was a very high response rate among regional, sub-regional and county-wide FQPs, with far lower response rates for town or city-based FQPs (either the whole urban area or part of it), issue specific and site specific FQPs. Table 5.1: FQPs in the survey compared with all FQPs identified in the UK by type
Type of FQP Number of FQPs
responding to questionnaire
Total number of FQPs
identified
Responding FQPs as %
of total identified
Regional 8 10 80%
Sub-regional 9 9 100%
County-wide 8 15 53%
Entire town or city and county-wide 1 4 25%
Entire town or city 3 17 18%
Part of an urban area 2 6 33%
Part of a county or unitary authority (rural & urban)
1 7 14%
Rural area 0 2 0%
Site specific 1 5 20%
Issue specific 1 12 8%
Total 34 87 39%
Of the 33 FQPs responding to the survey, 27 were still operating, 4 had ceased operating, and three were technically still operating but had not met formally or been active in recent years. Of those FQPs that have ceased operating this was due to personnel issues, difficulty in maintaining interest among members as well as funding problems. Table 5.2 shows that none of the three predominantly or entirely rural FQPs participated in the survey.
15
Table 5.2: Geographical focus of FQPs in the survey compared with all FQPs identified in the UK
Geographical focus of FQP Number of FQPs
responding to questionnaire
Total number of FQPs
identified
Responding FQPs as %
of total identified
Urban 18 38 47%
Urban and rural 16 36 44%
Predominantly rural 0 10 0%
Rural 0 3 0%
Total 34 87 39%
Table 5.3 shows that whereas single area FQPs are almost twice as numerous as multiple area FQPs in the UK, the survey resulted in more responses from the latter than the former. Table 5.3: LTP area coverage of FQPs in the survey compared with all FQPs identified in the UK
LTP area coverage of FQP Number of FQPs responding to questionnaire
Total number of FQPs identified
Responding FQPs as % of total identified
Single LTP area 16 57 28%
Multiple LTP areas 18 30 60%
Total 34 87 39%
5.2 Composition of FQPs Figure 5.1 shows the prevalence of different types of organisations in the membership of the FQPs responding to the survey. Local authority and freight transport trade association membership can be seen to be the most common type of FQP members, followed by freight transport companies, other local business groups, retailers and the police. Manufacturers, service companies, town centre managers, environmental / civic amenity groups, and resident groups are the least common types of members among the FQPs responding. Comments provided by a few respondents suggest that including resident groups as FQP members can prove difficult to manage when there is local hostility to freight transport, resulting in debates and discussions that can become rather stale with no obvious progress. In these cases, some FQPs have found it better to liaise with resident groups in other ways, outside of the FQP. This may partly explain the lack of resident group representation in FQPs. Respondents also listed other FQP members, these included the Highway Agency, Regional Government Offices, a parish council, Network Rail, British Waterways, airports, port operators, rail freight operators, quarry operators, a national park, and a bus operator.
16
Figure 5.1: Type of FQP members
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Resident groups
Environmental / civic amenity groups
Town Centre Manager
Police
Other companies
Service companies
Manufacturers
Retailers
Freight transport companies
Professional bodies
Other local business groups
Chamber of Commerce
Other trade associations
Other freight trade associations
Road Haulage Association
Freight Transport Association
Local authority
Number of FQPs mentioning this
Note: sample size of 33 respondents Figure 5.2 shows the size of the membership of the FQPs that participated in the survey. The variation in the number of members in an FQP is likely to be due to several factors including: the membership policy, the geographical size of the FQP, and the range and type of FQP activities.
17
Figure 5.2: Size of FQP membership
13
7
33
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Up to 10 11-30 31-50 More than 50
Number of FQP members
Nu
mb
er o
f F
QP
s
Note: sample size of 26 respondents The majority of respondents reported that it was the local authority that took the lead in establishing the FQP (25 out of 32 respondents – see Table 5.4). Other FQPs were either established in collaboration between the local authority and the FTA/RHA, or the local authority and consultants. In one case a private company was responsible for establishing the FQP (as part of a planning agreement). Table 5.4: Organisation that took lead in establishing the FQP
Organisation taking lead Number of FQPs
Local authority 25
Local authority with FTA/RHA 3
Local authority with consultants 3
Company 1
Total 32
Note: sample size of 32 respondents Among the 34 FQPs that responded to the survey, in 27 cases the day-to-day running and management was carried out by a local authority, in six cases by a consultant (appointed by a local authority), and in one case by a private company. 5.3 Aims and objectives of FQPs Respondents were asked to provide the main reasons as to why their FQP had been established. Thirty-three of the 34 respondents provided an answer to this question. Respondents could provide up to a maximum of five reasons (open response); in total the 33 respondents provided 77 reasons. These were grouped into seven categories during the analysis and the results are shown in Figure 5.3.
18
Figure 5.3: Main reasons why the FQP was established
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Encourage / share best practice among operators
As part of transport policy
Other
As part of LTP / LIP
Sustainability & environment
Traffic flow / traffic management
To discuss / resolve freight issues
Number of FQPs mentioning this
Note: sample size of 33 respondents providing a total of 77 reasons. “Other” includes: ensuring awareness of legislation changes relating to the freight industry; meeting the needs of local communities; providing an Information System for goods vehicles; and improved signage, overnight parking provision and delivery for goods vehicle drivers. The most frequently cited reason for establishing an FQP was to discuss and resolve freight transport issues. This was followed by traffic flow, traffic management and access issues. Sustainability and environmental issues was the third most frequently cited reason. Establishing an FQP “as part of a LTP/LIP” (the fourth most common response) can be viewed as a rather passive reason (i.e. doing it because national government guidance recommends it), whereas respondents who established the FQP “as part of transport policy” seem to have done for more active reasons as part of their existing transport policies. 5.4 Resourcing of FQPs Respondents were asked about the level of staffing made available to manage and organise the FQP on a day-to-day basis. The results indicate that the resourcing of FQPs varied widely among the respondents (see Figure 5.4).
19
Figure 5.4: Staffing available to manage and organise the FQP (in full-time equivalent staff - FTEs)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Zero More than 0 up to0.1 FTE
More than 0.1FTE up to 0.5
FTE
More than 0.5FTE but lessthan 1 FTE
1 FTE or greater
Nu
mb
er
of
FQ
Ps
Note: sample size of 26 respondents Responses indicate that most FQPs received their funding through LTP / LIP bidding processes. Private sector organisations only made a direct financial contribution in 3 out of 32 FQPs that responded to this question. However, it should be noted that the private sector made a major contribution-in-kind in all FQPs by participating as members.
20
6. Survey results – Work and achievements of FQPs 6.1 Activities of FQPs Figure 6.1 shows the types of activities that respondents’ FQPs were involved in. The most common type of activity was information provision (27 out of 33 FQPs), followed by data collection and survey work (24 out of 33 respondents), research projects (19 out of 33 respondents), and consultation work (17 out of 33 respondents). Infrastructure projects were the least common type of activity carried out by the FQPs. Figure 6.1: Type of activities that FQPs are involved in
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Info
rmat
ion
prov
isio
n
Dat
aco
llect
ion/
surv
eyw
ork
Res
earc
hpr
ojec
ts
Con
sulta
tion
wor
k
Impl
emen
tatio
nof
new
/rev
ised
polic
y m
easu
res
Oth
er
Infr
astr
uctu
repr
ojec
ts
Nu
mb
er
of
FQ
Ps
me
nti
on
ing
th
is
Note: sample size of 33 respondents. “Other” included: publicity and promotion of freight as an issue within local authorities, including a freight page on the Local Transport Plan website, ensuring FQP members are fully aware of legislation changes and implementation, development of approaches to improving SatNav unit's ability to route HGVs, school training days on dangers of HGVs, freight awareness events and site visits for Borough Officers. Examples of the type of information provision that respondents’ FQPs had been involved in included: Advisory Lorry route maps Local loading/unloading maps Drivers’ freight maps Online freight mapping Driver information sheets Signage improvements Logistics Toolkits Guides on topics including fly tipping, Delivery and Servicing Plans, Construction
Logistics Plans
21
Examples of the type of data collection and survey work that respondents’ FQPs had been involved in included: Freight operator/driver and business surveys Overnight lorry parking surveys Delivery and Servicing plan surveys Traffic volumes/speed data Examples of the type of research projects that respondents’ FQPs had been involved in included: Feasibility studies into Consolidation Centres Out of hours delivery projects Loading and unloading.projects Freight impact studies Freight routing projects Freight signage review projects Truck stop / overnight parking facilities projects PCN hotspot studies Studies into use of GPS for mapping/routeing Freight vehicle accident studies Bridge strike studies Rail freight assessment studies Canal freight studies Electric freight bicycles studies Examples of the type of consultation work that respondents’ FQPs had been involved in included: Freight strategy issues (for Local Transport Plans) Consultation responses to Boroughs, Local Authorities, County Councils, DfT and
parliamentary Transport Select committee. Pedestrianisation plans Congestion Charging Low Emissions Zone Lorry Management Zone Port Expansion Plans Examples of the implementation of new/revised policy measures that respondents’ FQPs had been involved in included: Development and implementation of freight strategy (which determines freight policy
measures) Delivery & servicing plan development and implementation Local PCN mitigation measures Loading/unloading rules Freight Signing Strategy Examples of the type of infrastructure projects that respondents’ FQPs had been involved in included: Driver information boards in lay-bys Bridge maintenance
22
Legal loading streetscape works Signage improvements Loading bays in town centres Examples of other activities that respondents’ FQPs had been involved in included: Publicity and promotion of freight as an issue within local authorities Development of websites Meetings and events on specific topics Ensuring members are fully aware of legislation changes and implementation Developing approaches to improve SatNav unit's ability to route HGVs. School training days on dangers of HGVs Freight Awareness events Site visits arranged for Borough Officers 6.2 Topics addressed by FQPs Respondents were also asked to indicate the specific topics that their FQPs had addressed. The results are shown in Table 6.1. As Table 6.1 shows, the four topics most commonly addressed by respondents’ FQPs have been: lorry routeing, overnight parking, signing, and loading and unloading provision. Responses show that for many of the FQPs that have addressed “lorry routeing” this included both the investigation of lorry routes as well as the consideration of whether freight maps were required. For those FQPs that have addressed “overnight parking” this has included studies into the demand for such provision and the suitability of existing facilities, reviewing existing schemes, and the investigation of the suitability of specific sites. “Signing” has included reviewing and updating existing signing, as well as devising new signing strategies for industrial estates. “Loading and unloading provision” has included reviewing existing provision, studying loading and unloading activity, and reviewing enforcement practices, as well as developing solutions. The fact that more FQPs have addressed “loading and unloading provision” than “loading and unloading restrictions and fines” (19 FQPs compared with 13 FQPs) suggests that FQPs are focusing more on assisting freight transport activity rather than on controlling and penalising it (as has traditionally been the case). It is important to note that some topics that are generally considered to be of great importance to the efficiency and safety of freight transport activity (including vehicle utilisation and driver training) have not received attention in as many FQPs as some other topics
23
Table 6.1: Specific topics that FQPs have addressed
Topic Number of FQPs mentioning this
Lorry routeing 22
Overnight parking 20
Signing 19
Loading and unloading provision 19
Good practice in freight operations 16
Out of hours deliveries 16
Urban consolidation centres 15
Vehicle access (times or weights/sizes) 14
Rail freight work 14
Reducing the number and impacts of deliveries 14
Loading and unloading restrictions and fines 13
Traffic information 13
Strategic planning 12
Low Emission Zones / emissions regulations 11
Environmentally friendly vehicles 11
Conflicts between goods vehicles and other road users 10
Enforcement issues 10
Congestion 9
Water freight work 8
Lorry lanes 7
Vehicle utilization 6
Driver training 5
Home deliveries 5
Bicycle delivery 5
Telematics 4
Road pricing 1
Note: sample size of 30 respondents.
24
6.3 Outputs of FQPs Respondents were asked about the outputs that their FQPs had produced. The results are shown in Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: Outputs produced by FQPs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Advertising campaign
Other
Guides
New sletters
Brochures
Seminars, w orkshops, conferences for w ider audience
Good practice information
Project reports
Seminars, w orkshops, conferences for FQP members
Feasibility/evaluation studies
Freight maps
Meetings for the FQP members
Number of FQPs mentioning this
Note: sample size of 31 respondents. Figure 6.2 shows that the five most common outputs produced by the respondents’ FQPs were (in order of importance): meetings for the FQP members; freight maps (to assist drivers); feasibility/evaluation studies; Seminars, workshops, conferences for the FQP members; and project reports. The frequency of freight meetings for members vary between FQPs, but are held between two and four times per year in most cases. In addition, some FQPs have also organised events such as seminars, workshops, conferences, site visits, and freight awareness events for a wider audience. Freight mapping outputs from respondents’ FQPs include: destination maps, advisory lorry route maps, abnormal load route maps, and highways restrictions route maps. Some of these maps have been printed while other are digital maps available on-line.
25
Feasibility and evaluation studies carried out by respondents’ FQPs have focused on topics including: out of hours deliveries, urban consolidation centres, non-road modes, drivers rest facilities, loading and unloading provision, routeing, shared lorry/bus lanes, and overnight parking. Only one other attempt to study the activities and outputs of FQPs has been identified during the literature review carried out in the study, and as this work takes the form of a PowerPoint presentation which does not include any details about the study or the number of respondent FQPs its findings must be treated with caution. However, despite these cautions, this study from 2003 can be used to compare with the results in Figures 5.1 (FQP topics) and 5.2 (FQP outputs) – its findings are shown in Figure 6.3 (Jackson, 2003). This 2003 study indicated that, in terms of work-in-progress and work implemented, by far the three most commonly taken FQP actions/outputs were (in order of importance): freight maps, freight routeing, and freight signage. This compares closely with our survey responses which show that freight routeing and signage were the first and third most common FQP activities respectively (see Figure 6.1), and which show freight maps were the second most common FQP output (only exceeded by FQP meetings which Jackson did not consider – see Figure 6.2). Responses to our survey show that overnight parking and considerations of loading/unloading provision were as commonly conducted by FQPs as the other activities discussed above. By comparison, in the 2003 study, although these topics are the next most commonly addressed (“lorry parking” and “review loading”) there was considerably work-in-progress or implementation associated with these two topics compared with freight maps, routeing and signs. This suggests that FQPs may have carried out more work into overnight parking and reviewing loading/unloading over the last six years. Figure 6.3: FQP progress by initiative in 2003
Source: Jackson, 2003. Half of the FQPs responding to our survey had set up a website, while half had not.
26
6.4 Most important achievements of FQPs Respondents were also asked to describe what, in their opinion, were the most important achievements of their FQP. They were permitted to explain up to five such achievements. Respondents provided open responses. During the analysis, these responses have been grouped into suitable categories. Figure 6.4 shows the number of FQPs that mentioned each of these categories of achievement as being among the most important they have carried out. This analysis indicates that achievements related to improving partnership working were most commonly reported to be the most important achievements by respondents, followed by producing freight maps and signage. Achievements in increasing the understanding and profile of freight transport and developing freight plans and strategies (and providing input to wider transport plans and strategies) were the next most frequently reported categories of important actions carried out by their FQPs by respondents. Figure 6.4: Respondents views on the most important achievements of their FQPs
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Dealing withloading/unloading/parking
issues
Promoting / disseminatinggood practice innovation
Dealing with routeing / trafficinformation issues
Freight Plan/Strategy
Greater understanding of /profile for freight issues
Maps / signage
Improved communication/discussion/ partnership
working
Number of FQPs mentioning this
Note: sample size of 29 respondents. The types of achievement noted by respondents in terms of the category “improved communication / discussion / partnership working” included (these are the actual quotes of respondents): “Bringing together public and private sector organisations with an interest in freight.
27
Whilst there a number of important products of the partnership perhaps the most valuable achievement is the relationships built between partnership members. This has been invaluable in finding shared solutions and was fundamental in allowing our progress in general.
Long term engagement with array of stakeholders to promote the freight agenda. Providing a forum for debate/discussion. Getting pro-lorry and anti-lorry groups round a table discussing issues. Created an established forum for discussion and dissemination and ideas. Improving inter-borough relations on freight issues. Closer links between authorities region wide. Establishing a format to allow better contact from the industry based upon
communication rather than unrealistic expectations of engineering. Giving companies the opportunity to discuss issues with a number of different groups
in one place”. These comments help to emphasise the benefits of the FQP approach in getting the public and private sectors working effectively together to discuss issues and generate ideas and solutions. It also highlights the role that FQPs can play in helping local transport authorities to work together more effectively across a region or sub-region. Respondents were also asked to explain the ways in which they felt that their FQP had made a difference compared with if it had not been established. Respondents were able to provide up to five open response answers, and the 23 respondents provided a total of 67 ways in which they believed their FQP had made a difference. By far the most common response referred to ways in which the FQPs had improved partnership working, especially between the public and private sectors - almost half of the responses related to such partnership working improvements. In a similar vein to the two previous questions, respondents were asked to describe what, in their opinion, were the most important actions that their FQP was currently working on. Again, they were permitted to explain up to five such actions. As with the previous question, during the analysis these open responses were grouped into suitable categories. Figure 6.5 shows the number of respondents that mentioned each of these categories of action as being among the most important that they are currently working on. Figure 6.5 reflects that actions associated with improving partnership working were most frequently mentioned as the most important current actions. The responses suggest that loading/unloading/parking issues feature more prominently in FQPs current work than they may have in the past, while the development and introduction of freight maps and signage has become less prominent (which is to be expected as once freight mapping/signage issues has been addressed it would probably not need to be revisited for several years). Two additional categories appear in the important current actions (Figure 6.5) compared with achievements to date (Figure 6.4). These are “developing freight initiatives” and “FQP funding issues”, which indicates that actions in these categories have been relatively recently addressed for the first time by some FQPs and are now viewed as important. Examples of the types of freight initiatives being worked on by respondents’ FQPs include: “developing a workable voluntary weight restriction in the area”, “working towards implementation of a Large Vehicle Lane to provide priority for HGVs”, “sustainable distribution and construction logistics plans for the construction industry”, the “development and management of local freight forums in industrial estates”, and “implementing pilot cycle freight and local delivery solutions”.
28
Figure 6.5: Respondents views on the most important current actions/outputs of their FQPs
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Promoting / disseminating good practice innovation
FQP Funding issues
Research/studies/trials
Maps / signage
FQP planning / reorganisation
Freight Plan/Strategy
Dealing w ith routeing / traff ic information issues
Developing freight initiatives
Dealing w ith loading/unloading/parking issues
Improved communication/ discussion/ partnership w orking
Number of FQPs mentioning this
Note: sample size of 23 respondents. 6.5 Partnership working between public and private sectors in FQPs Respondents were asked to what extent they thought that their FQP had improved partnership working between the public and private sectors. The results are shown in Table 6.2. The vast majority of respondents (31 out of 33 FQPs) felt that their FQP had either improved public-private partnership working either “a lot” or “a little”. Only two respondents felt that the FQP had made no difference to public-private partnership working and none felt that that such partnership working had suffered as a result of the FQP. However, this needs to be treated with some caution as it is possible that it may reflect a self-selecting sample, with those that are most involved in FQPs in a positive way being more likely to respond to the questionnaire. Analysis of the seven respondent FQPs that are either dormant or have ceased to exist shows that the five thought it had improved partnership working a little, while the other two thought it had made no difference to partnership working.
29
Table 6.2: Respondents’ views on the effect of the FQP on public-private partnership working
Effect on partnership working Number of FQPs
Improved partnership working a lot 13
Improved partnership working a little 18
Made no difference to partnership working 2
Worsened partnership working a little 0
Worsened partnership working a lot 0
Total 33
Note: sample size of 33 respondents. Respondents provided a range of comments related to the effect of their FQP on public-private partnership working. Some of the positive comments made included that: The kind of face-to-face meeting and discussion made possible by the FQP would not
occur in the normal process of public sector consultation and private sector problems would not be addressed in such a timely way.
The FQPs have dispelled some of the myths that are mutually shared by public/private sector operators.
A good working relation was established with the FTA and RHA and contacts with key hauliers. This enabled the FQP to have frank and honest discussions on controversial issues and still remain “friends”.
Borough officers have a greater appreciation on freight issues and intervention measures and are able to offer solutions to the industry on a win-win basis.
Some of the comments made about issues and challenges related to public-private sector partnership in respondents’ FQPs included that: The FQP improved partnership working while it was being developed, but members lost
interest once the main actions had been delivered. Over time the partners’ involvement and commitment has waned. The need to involve more freight and servicing operators in the FQP membership. The FQP did bring the stakeholders together, but did not implement any actions.
30
7. Survey results – Challenges, failings, lessons learned, and learning from other FQPs 7.1 Greatest challenges faced by FQPs Respondents were asked to provide their views on the greatest challenges faced by their FQP. They were permitted to list up to five such challenges faced. These responses were grouped into suitable categories during the analysis. Table 7.1 shows the number of FQPs that mentioned each of these categories of challenge as being among the most important they face. By far the most numerous responses relate to trying to keep the momentum of the FQP going and to maintain the focus of the FQP and the interest of members – challenges relating to this category were mentioned more than twice as often as challenges grouped under the other categories. Other challenges commonly mentioned were concerned with: i) funding and resourcing issues, ii) retaining and attracting members (and obtaining their attendance), iii) a lack of understanding of freight transport among the public sector and the general public, and iv) relationship problems between the public and private sector members. Table 7.1: Respondents’ views on the greatest challenges faced by their FQPs
Category of challenge currently faced Number of FQPs mentioning this as among most important challenges
Maintaining interest/focus/momentum 24
Funding / resourcing issues 11
Retaining / attracting members / attendance 9
Lack of public sector understanding / Negative public view of freight
8
Public and private sector relationship problems / lack of agreement
7
Making FQP representative 2
Note: sample size of 30 respondents. Specific challenges mentioned by respondents in trying to keep the momentum of the FQP going, and maintaining the focus of the FQP and the interest of members included (these are the actual quotes of respondents): “Maintaining dialogue and momentum between meetings. Maintaining the commitment of members (especially in the present financial
climate). Keeping industry interested in activity given often extended time required to receive
authority approval for work. Obtaining the participation of borough officers at Steering Group Meetings/ FQP
funded schemes. Sustaining the interest of a diverse range of partners. Ensuring the FQP is not seen as a talking shop and provides meaningful actions. Securing longer-term FQP member participation and buy-in. Personnel changes meant that momentum and interest was lost”.
31
7.2 Failings of FQPs Respondents were also asked about what they thought were the greatest failings of their FQP. Again, they were permitted to list up to five such challenges faced, and these responses were grouped into suitable categories during the analysis. Table 7.2 shows the number of FQPs that mentioned each of these categories of failing as being among the most important they had experienced. The most commonly mentioned failings fall into the categories of: i) funding/resourcing problems, and ii) problems in maintaining the focus and momentum of the FQP and its members. Other failings commonly mentioned fall into the categories of: a lack of FQP member commitment, difficulties in retaining and attracting FQP members, and a lack of outputs achieved by the FQP. Table 7.2: Respondents’ views on the greatest failings of their FQPs
Category of failing experienced Number of FQPs mentioning this as among most important failings
Funding / resourcing issues 12
Maintaining interest/focus/momentum 12
Lack of member commitment 8
Retaining/attracting industry members / attendance 6
Lack of outputs 4
Public and private sector relationship problems / lack of agreement
2
FQP Promotion difficulties 2
Making FQP representative 1
Note: sample size of 28 respondents. Respondents noted that funding and resourcing difficulties had made it difficult to: achieve investment for major capital projects, ensure that follow up action is seen through and delivered, advertise the FQP to smaller businesses in the region, take the FQP beyond initial launch. 7.3 Most important lessons learned by FQPs Respondents were asked about the most important lessons they had learned in running an FQP. As with the previous questions, they were allowed to provide up to five, open response answers. These responses were grouped into suitable categories during the analysis. Table 7.3 shows the number of FQPs that mentioned each of these categories of lessons as being among the most important they had learned while running an FQP. The most commonly mentioned lessons learned fall into the four categories of: i) public and private sector relationship/agreement, ii) maintaining interest/focus/momentum, iii) managing FQP, and iv) FQP promotion / communication.
32
Table 7.3: Respondents’ views on the most important lessons learned by their FQPs
Category of lesson learned Number of FQPs mentioning this as among most important lessons
Public and private sector relationship / agreement 12
Maintaining interest/focus/momentum 10
Managing the FQP 10
FQP promotion / communication 8
Funding / resourcing issues 4
Member commitment 4
Outputs and achievements 4
Retaining/attracting industry members / attendance 3
Public sector understanding / Negative public view of freight
3
Note: sample size of 25 respondents. A summary of some of the lessons learned that were provided by respondents under the seven most frequently mentioned of these categories are quoted below. Public and private sector relationship / agreement “The strength of the partnership is in its members - by making links with the
Chamber of Commerce, Freight Crime Partnership, Skills for Logistics etc this is a good pull for business to join.
Needs enthusiastic support from members. The need to involve all stakeholders. To be open and honest. The importance of facilitating between disparate parties and views. The value of the relationships built through partnerships such as this, which often
exceeds that of the formal outputs. The need to understand the constraints and abilities of all involved. Maximise opportunities at events for public and private sector to network and
understand each other's issues. The funding party should not dictate where the funds should be spent as this should
be the prerogative of the partnership steering group”. Maintaining interest/focus/momentum “Managing people's expectations and being realistic. Working on a variety of issues. Need to avoid a talking shop - specific actions with timescales. Do not waste anybody’s time at meetings. The Partnership cannot sit back and say we are a success. Provide updates on issues of immediate interest. The need to have a constant work programme linked to an action-led strategy to
avoid a talking shop”.
33
Managing the FQP “The members should not expect the lead organisation to do all the work. Deciding whether an internal FQP Manager or a consultancy running the FQP
provides greater value for money. Need to separate out strategic level issues from more operational/ local issues. Need to have clear Terms of Reference and Action Plan. The need to have senior managers (public and private) buy in to the process. Needs political support. Establishing the structure is very important to ensure that the freight partnership has
direct reporting lines to the key decision makers. Continuity of personnel leading the FQP (lack of continuity has often resulted in
FQPs becoming dormant)”. FQP promotion / communication “Need to develop marketing and promotional ideas. Maximise opportunities to promote the FQP. Communications are critical to FQP success, along with transparency. Provide relevant information when required in a way most recipients want it. Networking is essential to establishing a robust network to carry out the work of the
partnership”. Funding/ resourcing issues “Appropriate funding is necessary, but to start small. It can be difficult to secure dedicated funding for officer time to take forward the work
of the partnership. That budgets should remain flexible as one task may take less resource, where
another may take more”. Outputs and achievements “Setting meaningful and achievable goals. Need very clear deadlines for both completion of tasks and review/approval of
these. Have a manageable number of deliverables and ensure each makes some progress
from meeting to meeting, to ensure members see progress. 'Softer' solutions based on collaboration rather than restriction are likely to be more
acceptable and beneficial”. Member commitment “Input from the stakeholders is an important part of success. All stakeholders must take ownership of the FQP to make it a success. Need clear responsibility for actions allocated across members. The partnership must work as a partnership with no one party placing their needs
above others - priority for actions and funding must be agreed within a transparent framework”.
34
7.4 Learning from the knowledge and experience of other FQPs Respondents were asked the extent to which their FQP had been in contact with other FQPs in the UK. The results are shown in Figure 7.1. The results suggest that contact between FQPs has been rather limited in many cases, with only 6 out of 31 respondents saying that their FQP has been in contact “a lot” with other FQPs. Analysis of the FQPs that had been in contact with each other suggests that most contact has taken place between FQPs located near to each other. Figure 7.1: Extent to which respondents’ FQPs have been in contact with other FQPs in the UK
6
22
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
A lot A little Not at all
Nu
mb
er o
f F
QP
s
Note: sample size of 31 respondents. Respondents were asked whether or not they felt that their FQP could learn from the knowledge and experiences of others in the UK. The results are shown in Figure 7.2. A large majority of respondents thought that their FQP could learn “a lot” from other FQPs, with the remainder feeling that they can learn “a little”.
35
Figure 7.2: Extent to which respondents believe their FQPs could learn from knowledge and experience of other FQPs in the UK
21
9
00
5
10
15
20
25
A lot A little Not at all
Nu
mb
er o
f F
QP
s
Note: sample size of 30 respondents Respondents were then asked to what extent they had been able to obtain and make use of approaches and ideas developed in other FQPs in the UK for their own FQP. The results are shown in Figure 7.3. Figure 7.3: Extent to which FQPs have obtained and made use of approaches and ideas developed in other FQPs in the UK
21
44
0
5
10
15
20
25
A lot A little Not at all
Nu
mb
er o
f F
QP
s
Note: sample size of 29 respondents
36
Only a small number of FQPs (4 out of 29) had managed to obtain and make use of the approaches and ideas of other FQPs to a large degree. The majority of respondents (21 out of 29) had only managed to obtain and make use of “a little” of the ideas and approaches of other FQPs, while 4 FQPs had not been able to do so at all. This reflects that although many respondents felt that their FQPs could learn a lot from the experience and knowledge of other FQPs (as shown by Figure 6.2) in practice this has proved difficult to achieve to a large extent for many (as shown by Figure 7.3). Even when contact between FQPs is taking place (see Figure 7.1) the results suggest that knowledge transfer is not taking place to any great extent. Respondents were asked to indicate which issues it either has been or would have been useful for their FQP to access information and ideas about from other FQPs. Table 7.4 shows the number of FQP respondents who mentioned each of these issues. Table 7.4: Issues respondents felt would be most useful to their FQP if they could access information and ideas from other FQPs Issue Number of FQPs
Deciding the issues to be dealt with by an FQP 17
Producing good practice information 15
Implementing new/revised policy measures 14
Developing consultation work (i.e. working with freight transport stakeholders on a particular issue)
14
Setting up an FQP 13
Developing non-road freight work (i.e. rail and water) 13
Producing maps 13
Carrying out research projects (e.g. feasibility studies, scoping studies, evaluation studies)
12
Producing guides 12
Managing day-to-day working with FQP members 11
Carrying out data collection/survey work 10
Implementing infrastructure projects 9
Organising seminars, workshops, and conferences 9
Producing newsletters 8
Producing advertising campaigns 8
Organising meetings for FQP members 7
Other 4
Producing brochures 3 Note: sample size of 29 respondents “Other” included: Sharing contacts within national organisations, Facilitating communication in general, Guidance on sourcing funding from third parties (both public and private sector) to supplement
existing funds, Successful press releases. From the list of issues shown in Table 7.4, respondents were asked to rank the three issues that they thought would be/have been most useful in order of importance. The results are shown in Table 7.5.
37
Table 7.5: Respondents’ views on the importance of issues they felt would be most useful to their FQP if they could access information and ideas from other FQPs Issue Number of FQPs ranking this as
among three most important topics
Deciding the issues to be dealt with by an FQP 12
Setting up an FQP 9
Developing consultation work (i.e. working with freight transport stakeholders on a particular issue)
8
Producing good practice information 7
Managing day-to-day working with FQP members 7
Developing non-road freight work (i.e. rail & water) 6
Carrying out research projects (e.g. feasibility studies, scoping studies, evaluation studies)
4
Producing advertising campaigns 4
Producing maps 4
Implementing new/revised policy measures 3
Carrying out data collection/survey work 2
Producing guides 2
Producing newsletters 1
Implementing infrastructure projects 1
Organising meetings for FQP members 1
Organising seminars, workshops, and conferences 1 Note: sample size of 27 respondents Table 7.5 shows that the issue FQP respondents most commonly rated as wanting help and information from other FQPs about was “deciding the issues to be dealt with by an FQP”. This was followed by information and ideas about “setting up an FQP”, “developing consultation work”, “producing good practice information”, “managing day-to-day working with FQP members”, and “developing non-road freight work”.
38
8. Survey results - Views on FQPs concept and approach in the UK in general Respondents were asked several questions regarding their views on FQPs in general, rather than specifically about their own FQP. 8.1 Views on the FQP approach Respondents were asked to provide their general views on the FQP concept in the UK. We have grouped these comments made by respondents into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (i.e. SWOT analysis). Strengths of FQPs Consideration of environmental and social issues, as well as economic and efficiency
issues, Brings together the public sector and private sector freight operators and users, Raised awareness and understanding of freight issues between different stakeholders
(especially local authorities), Ability to discuss likely effects of proposals affecting freight movements, Seeks consensus on freight transport issues. Weaknesses of FQPs Lack of funding prevents successful action, Membership not always active in their participation, Representative membership not always achieved, Lack of private sector involvement in some cases, Lack of local political buy-in in some cases, Some FQPs established only to satisfy freight requirements of Local Transport Plans, Some FQPs lack momentum and focus, Some FQPs struggle to define action plan and timed work programme.
Opportunities Strengthening of relationships between stakeholders helps freight strategy and policy
development, FQPs can be very helpful if they meet regularly and are given some responsibility, Very relevant to support a successful economy – practical means for the private and
public sector to work together to bring improvements to how deliveries and collections are made and managed,
Can be tailored to meet specific needs, Can make a practical and strategic difference, Scope to share information and knowledge between FQPs to reduce costs and improve
outcomes. Threats Can become talking shops, Lack of coordination between FQPs risks limiting ambition, reducing effectiveness and
potentially wasteful duplication, Variations in application across the country can frustrate efforts to co-ordinate at a higher
level (spatially), Lack of standard approach leads to outcomes that vary from partnership to partnership, Consistent funding is required, Lack of focus and direction can lead to few tangible outputs,
39
If it does not deliver real benefits to all participants the FQP is likely to fail. 8.2 Partnership working between public and private sectors Respondents were asked whether or not, in general, they felt that the FQP approach had helped to encourage partnership working between the public and private sectors. Of the 28 respondents who answered this question, 26 felt that that the FQP approach had helped to encourage such partnership working, one was unsure, and one felt that it had not. This is in line with the findings in section 6.5 in which respondents provided feedback on the success of public-private sector partnerships specifically in their FQP. The respondent who felt that FQPs had not helped to encourage partnership working believed that there was “little evidence of partnership, in part due to the lack of momentum in the FQPs, through insufficient funding and resources”. Comments by those respondents who believed that the FQP approach had helped to encourage such partnership working ranged from those who were very positive about FQPs to others whose support was more limited. Very positive comments included: “Provides an opportunity to understand each other’s position and motives.” “It’s the basic premise in all our FQPs’ project work and communications”. “Better liaison between local authorities and trade associations”. “It has bought public and private sectors together to discuss freight / servicing issues”. “The relationships developed are vital in preventing misunderstanding and animosity”. “The FQP title and its reputation has brought interest from a diverse cross section of
public and private sectors”. “I believe the FQP approach is a good start to encourage awareness raising and
partnership working between both sectors, however, I believe that further work is required to show the benefits in participating in any such scheme”.
“Both groups would otherwise have little reason to talk to one another on a formal basis.
The private sector gain influence over transport planning policy and future direction, and the public sector gain a useful sounding board and forum for consultation on their proposals”.
“Yes. Provides a platform for industry and local authority to come together to discuss,
rather than what was the case prior to FQPs with both at loggerheads”. “It provides a forum for the two sectors to meet and discuss freight issues in a broader
context than the individual problems that would usually draw them together”. Comments made by respondents who felt FQPs had improved partnership working but who were more qualified in their support included: “In very specific places with key businesses such as ports etc”.
40
“I think private sector involvement will be determined by the subject in hand - if it is in their interests, FQPs could facilitate their involvement”.
“Lines of communication and networks have been established”. “It does provide the opportunity to bring the public and private sectors together if only, at
the very least, to be aware of each sector’s concerns. The main difficulty arises when measures/actions need implementing, particularly if they need funding to do so”.
“Has certainly done no harm but not clear what real benefits will accrue”. 8.3 Value for money provided by the FQP approach Respondents were asked whether or not they felt that, in general, the FQP approach has provided good value for money in the UK. The results are shown in Figure 8.1. The results indicate that two-thirds of respondents believe that FQPs have provided good value for money while the other third either do not or were unable to provide a view on this topic. Figure 8.1: Respondents’ views on whether the FQP approach provides good value for money
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Yes Cannot say No
Nu
mb
er o
f F
QP
s
Note: sample size of 23 respondents. Comments made by those respondents who felt that the FQP did provide good value for money included: “Has allowed consideration of a joint approach and cut down on proposing measures
that would lead to formal objection with a consequent saving in time spent by staff in both public and private sectors on dealing with objections and attendant paper work”.
“I can only speak for the xxx FQP and I have to say yes because we have covered so
much ground in 4 years”. “Don’t know budgets in other FQPs but xxx FQP must be good value for money because
costs so little in relation to achievements”.
41
“Yes but not able to quantify the value added in developed relationships and understanding of each others issues”.
“Given the low costs and encouraging results noted xxx FQP appears to be good value
but I am unable to comment on the national situation”. “Yes, since resources allocated are limited”. “Yes given the level of funding and staff time”. “Yes - based on xxx FQP - good return on money/time investment”. “Yes because there is a need for the public and private sectors to work together in order
to improve our record for sustainable distribution”. Respondents who were unsure about the value for provided by the FQP approach noted that: “Often once operators have secured those quick wins that they are most interested in,
they can lose interest and no longer attend. Across the UK, FQPs are still the exception rather than the rule, and too many become dormant. If it is the government's desire to see FQPs become the norm then thought needs to be given as to further incentives, such as ring fenced budgets for freight initiatives etc.”.
“Very hard to say. Some of the best FQPs are very local and issue specific and require
little if any financial resource to get key parties around the table to discuss freight issues and agree workable solutions. Some of the more expensive receive significant amounts of funding and appear, on the surface, to be delivering ‘useful’ outputs – always a risk that all that glitters isn’t gold and the key question always has to be how many industry reps (not just FTA and RHA) are actively engaged? FTA and RHA have a role to play on behalf of their members but ultimately industry operators, consignors and consignees need to be involved to make any real difference”.
“Not sure my experience shows any decision either way”. Those respondents that felt that the FQP approach did not provide good value for money noted that: “Not locally, a lot of good intentions but not many outputs”. “I think we have had to learn many lessons along the way, and I believe that the FQP
concept could be delivered far cheaper than it currently is (e.g. developing one FQP website (in a region) will reduce communication costs for the FQPs (in that region))”.
“While FQPs generally are a good idea and should be supported, there appears to be
little external funding (public and private). Where FQPs have been successful, it’s apparent that large funding allocations have been made”.
“In general, very little funding is offered to the FQPs, therefore value for money is not
measurable as little action is taken to provide tangible outcomes”.
42
8.4 Actions that could be taken by central government to assist in FQP work Respondents were asked what more (if anything) they thought that central government should do to assist in FQP work. Analysis showed that these comments could be grouped together under several headings: Providing direction and policy assistance for FQPs, Promotion of the FQP approach and the importance of efficient freight transport, Sharing and disseminating knowledge, Funding/resourcing of FQPs, Issues concerning private sector involvement, Comments on other specific issues. At present there is little available in the way of formal guidance and knowledge sharing aimed at FQPs. As noted by one respondent, the FreightBestPractice FQP guidance and case studies were produced more than seven years ago, and much has happened since then. Results presented earlier (see section 6.4) indicated that at present most contacts between FQPs take place locally (rather than regionally or nationally) and that few FQPs had managed to obtain and make use of the approaches and ideas of other FQPs to a large degree. This indicates that despite being keen to learn from the experience and knowledge of other FQPs this has proved difficult to achieve in practice. Central government together with other bodies could provide an important role in disseminating information, knowledge and guidance about FQPs, as well as putting FQPs in touch with each other on a national basis. This could potentially help provide FQPs with insight into possible steps and actions (and how best to go about achieving them), help to improve the success of FQPs’ efforts, and to reduce the costs of FQPs’ work. Possible knowledge transfer and dissemination ideas that could benefit the FQP approach in the UK include: a national FQP forum (to set up a forum to put those running and working in FQPs with
an opportunity to discuss ideas and issues in contact with each other on a on-going basis – this could be achieved via the internet, telephone, and/or face-to-face),
a national FQP website (to provide information and news about FQPs, including their achievements, experiences and knowledge, as well as central government help, advice and good practice guidance),
a national FQP Annual Conference (to allow those running and working on FQPs to meet annually to discuss their efforts and achievements).
Respondents were asked whether they thought that a national FQP forum, a national FQP website, and/or a national FQP Annual Conference would benefit the FQP approach in the UK. Respondents were allowed to select one or more of these three options and were also able to suggest other ideas they felt would benefits FQPs. The results are shown in Figure 8.2.
43
Figure 8.2: Respondents’ views on actions that could benefit the FQP approach in the UK
0
5
10
15
20
25
National FQPforum
National FQPwebsite
National FQPAnnual
Conference
Other
Nu
mb
er
of
FQ
Ps
me
nti
on
ing
th
is
Note: sample size of 28 respondents. The results in Figure 8.2 suggest that there was widespread support among respondents for each of these three ideas. Other ideas suggested by respondents were: A local FQP annual conference, A regional FQP annual conference, Better promotion of the FQP principle to business. Respondents were asked to indicate which of the possible actions in Figure 8.2 they felt was most important. The results are shown in Table 8.1, and suggest that there is relatively little difference in the importance respondents attached to the ideas of FQP annual conference, website and forum. Table 8.1: Respondents’ views on which of the actions that could benefit the FQP approach was the most important
Most important action Number of FQPs
National FQP Annual Conference 7
National FQP website 6
National FQP forum 5
Other 3
Note: sample size of 21 respondents
44
9. Concluding remarks 9.1 Evaluating the work of FQPs This study has reviewed the work of FQPs and identified many positive achievements. Broadly the roles and benefits of FQPs are potentially three-fold: 1. FQPs can potentially lead to actions and policy measures that would never have been
contemplated if the FQP had not existed. In this situation, bringing a far wider group of stakeholders into freight transport policy generation and development work could lead to entirely new perspectives that a policy administration would never have considered if working on its own.
2. In the case of policy issues and measures already identified by a policy administration,
FQPs can potentially result in better policy measures being devised and implemented than would otherwise have been the case. This is due to the range of inputs made by the range of parties that comprise the FQP. The private sector input to this FQP-led policy planning process could potentially be better than in a more traditional consultation exercise.
3. The FQP members can also potentially help to identify policy measures or specific
aspects of measures that should not be considered for implementation due to adverse or unintended consequences that they would result in.
However, it is clear that a more detailed evaluation would enable some of the benefits to be quantified more thoroughly. In addition, a more detailed review would potentially provide FQPs with greater insight into the advantages of various actions they could take. Sharing the results of this type of evaluation would help to guide FQPs as they continue to develop their various initiatives. 9.2 The potential value of national research and guidance to inform FQPs: the example of freight mapping The discussion below is intended to use the example of freight mapping to highlight the issues faced by individual FQPs in deciding whether to implement a particular activity and produce a related output. The discussion focuses on freight maps because they have been one of the most common actions taken by FQPs responding to the survey. We are not aware of any national research into the following issues concerned with the production of freight maps: The demand for freight maps from transport operators and goods vehicle drivers, If there is such a demand, what format they would prefer (paper-based or digital)?, If the maps are produced at a single scale, what scale is most appropriate to users?, What information should be provided on the maps?, What symbols and colour schemes are most appropriate for users? Because of the lack of coordination of work between FQPs, most FQPs that have produced maps have had to make decisions about all the above points for themselves. This has resulted in maps that vary considerably in type, content and style (Worthington, 2007). We
45
suggest that national research and guidance into the demand for freight mapping together with the development of standardised map types and styles would be likely to result in more useful and cost-effective outputs than if each FQP has to reach such decisions itself. There has been consideration by some FQPs of the potential use of information about freight vehicle restrictions and freight facilities in satellite navigation systems for goods vehicles. Such a navigation system may well prove to be more useful in the long run than paper-based or digital maps (which are difficult to consult during a journey), or may provide an additional resource for freight companies and drivers. 9.3 Knowledge and information sharing between FQPs - the role of central government and other national organisations The survey results indicate that the vast majority of respondents believe that their FQP has resulted in improved partnership working between the public and private sectors. In addition, activities associated with improved partnership working were the most frequently mentioned achievement of FQPs participating in the survey. However the survey results also show that respondents believe that there is much potential to learn from the knowledge and experience of other FQPs. To date most respondents feel that their FQP has only been able to learn “a little” from the ideas and approaches of others. Where there has been contact between FQPs this has tended to be between those located close to each other. Therefore, there appears to be substantial potential to improve the degree of information sharing and knowledge transfer between FQPs. This could help to further increase the effectiveness and reduce the costs of FQPs. The report has put forward three possible methods by which such information sharing and knowledge transfer could be facilitated namely: an FQP forum, an FQP national conference, and a national FQP website. All of these ideas received a high level of support from respondents. However, no single FQP is likely to take on the organisation and management associated with any of these three tasks, as their focus is on their own specific freight transport concerns, and their current level of funding would in any case be likely to prevent such action. Such a role requires the involvement of central government and other national bodies involved in FQPs such as relevant trade associations, especially the FTA which has had a key role in the FQP concept from its inception. Providing these types of events and facilities is likely to be important in helping to assist newly-formed FQPs, and to prevent existing FQPs from losing direction and ceasing to exist. Such information sharing and knowledge transfer would help to ensure that FQPs are able to operate as cost-effectively and efficiently as possible, to help standardise and promulgate solutions and outputs that are beneficial. 9.4 Short-term versus long-term FQPs Some of the views expressed by respondents and in written evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee suggest that FQPs should cease to exist once they have addressed the issue/s they were initially formed to deal with. However a counter view would argue that the continued existence of an FQP is beneficial in ensuring that a range of views are available for consideration of freight transport issues and potential strategies and policies relevant to freight as and when they arise. It is important to recognise that FQPs can be established to: address specific freight transport-related issues, be able to provide views and input to freight transport issues in general.
46
The former objective would only need to exist for a finite time until the issue is resolved. It could be disbanded having achieved its objective. The latter objective would require an on-going commitment, with the FQP members continuing to be available to discuss any freight issue that arises and to make sure freight transport views are well represented in all transport and related policy making. It is not clear among current FQPs, how many were set up with the former objective in mind but over time changed their remit to the latter, or whether they always had the latter approach in mind. Also, of those FQPs that have ceased to exist, it has been difficult to obtain information about why they no longer exist. FQPs could cease for two main reasons: i) they have achieved all their objectives, and/or ii) they were not proving to be successful in relation to their objectives. In most cases it is not possible to tell which of these reasons explain the cessation of the FQPs identified in the research as no longer existing. In addition, in the literature review it has been necessary to list many FQPs are “still operating” due to a lack of evidence to the contrary. It is possible that in some of these cases the FQPs in question no longer exist. However, establishing that an FQP no longer exists can prove difficult due to factors including: lack of relevant contact details, the personnel involved in the FQP having left their posts, and uncertainty among other staff in local authority transport departments who never had any involvement in the FQP. 9.5 Local authority-run versus consultancy-run FQPs The report has provided evidence of both local authority-run and consultancy-run FQPs (in terms of the organisations responsible for the day-to-day organisations and management of the FQP). The research shows that the former are more prevalent than the latter. Both models of FQP operation have strengths and weaknesses. The research indicates that somewhere between one in six and one in nine local authority-run FQPs identified in the literature review and questionnaire survey have had a substantial period of dormancy during their existence. This is usually due to either a loss of momentum among FQP members, funding issues, or a personnel change involving the person running the FQP on a day-to-day basis. The latter seems to be one of the major risks to the continued success of an FQP run by a local authority. The literature review revealed several instances of FQPs becoming dormant due to the local authority employee who was running it leaving their post, and no other colleague being given the responsibility for it immediately. In addition, in local authority-run FQPs, carrying out the day-to-day organisation of the FQP is typically a very small part of the job of the responsible member of staff. They often have to deal with many other disparate non-freight responsibilities as well. This is in contrast to FQPs run by consultants who are appointed to this role either by a local authority or the FQP itself. In this model if an individual consultant running the FQP leaves their post, the consultancy is contractually obliged to appoint another employee to run the FQP. However there are also potential shortcomings of consultancy-run FQPs. Discussions held during the survey work suggests that this model is viewed by some local authority respondents as more expensive, with less flexibility to adapt to situations as they arise (due to work plans and budgets that are established in advance for the duration of the contract or at least the coming year).
47
Therefore while the research has indicated some strengths and weaknesses of both models for the day-to-day management of FQPs, it is not possible to reach any firm conclusions about the relative merits of the two approaches. 9.6 Single v multiple LTP area FQPs The research has shown that some FQPs cover a single LTP area while others cover multiple LTP areas. These different models of FQPs (in terms of the number of LTP areas covered) have different advantages and disadvantages in terms of policy making and implementation. There are examples within FQPs that cover multiple LTP areas of the various policy making authorities not agreeing on policy direction or the details of specific policy measures. This can be an additional burden to policy implementation. This can be contrasted with the situation in an FQP that covers a single LTP area, in which it is easier for a single policy making body to reach a decision to implement a policy measure and determine the detail of that measure. However as many freight transport movements take place over distances that are not local (and thereby these flows cross political geographic boundaries), it follows that implementing a policy measure within only one political geographic area (e.g. a town, or part of a city) will not necessarily be able to adequately address the outstanding problem. So if an FQP is being formed to address a specific issue it is important to determine at the outset the geographical area over which the issue needs to be addressed as this will inform whether the FQP needs to cover a single or multiple LTP areas (and thereby comprise one or more political administrations). 9.7 Resourcing of FQPs The survey results indicate that there are significant differences in the resourcing of FQPs. More than half of the respondents indicated that their FQP had less than 0.1 full-time equivalent staff available for day-to-day organisation and management of the FQP. The survey results have also shown that future uncertainty about funding and resourcing issues are a major concern for many FQPs. Most of the funding received by FQPs comes through the LTP/ LIP process. There may be a role for central government funding bodies to help ensure that FQPs receive longer-term funding commitments in these bidding processes (to cover the relatively small sums of money that many FQPs seem to require for day-to-day running). 9.8 Surveying a wider group of FQP members The survey work carried out in this report has only sought responses from those individuals managing and running FQPs (either from county councils, local and unitary authorities, or consultancies). The views these individuals have provided are their own and do not necessarily represent those of the FQP as a whole. It could well be the case that surveying other members of an FQP would elicit different views and responses to those obtained. Unfortunately it has not been possible within the scope of this research to investigate the differing views of FQP members. However, such a piece of research would be both interesting and worthwhile.
48
References Armstrong, D. (2009) Personal communication from Donald Armstrong, Road Safety Division, Road Safety Division, Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland Executive. Atkins (2005) Long Term Process and Impact Evaluation of the Local Transport Plan Policy: Interim Report, Appendix D, July 2005, for DfT. Atkins, in association with PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Warwick Business School (2007) Long Term Process and Impact Evaluation of the Local Transport Plan Policy Final Report, June 2007, for DfT. Ambassadeur Stedelijke Distributie (2009) Aanleiding (Introduction) Available at: http://www.stedelijkedistributie.nl/onderwerpen/introductie/aanleiding/ Canadian Urban Institute (2004) Freight Stakeholder Partnerships (Appendix Three), in Moving the Economy (main author) Integration Technologies for Sustainable Urban Goods Movement, Report to Transport Canada’s Program of Energy Research and Development (PERD) and the Urban Intermodal and Motor Carrier Branch. Available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/report-acg-urbangoods-report-309.htm DfT (Department for Transport) (2009) Road Haulage Forum, DfT. Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/freight/road/rhf/ DfT (2008a) Delivering A Sustainable Transport System: The Logistics Perspective, DfT. DfT (2008b) Consultation on Local Transport Plan 3 Guidance, DfT. DfT (2003a) A guide on how to set up and run Freight Quality Partnerships, Good Practice Guide 335, Transport Energy Best Practice Programme, DfT. DfT (2003b) Freight Quality Partnerships: Case studies, Good Practice Case Study 410, Transport Energy Best Practice Programme, DfT. DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) (2000) Guidance on full Local Transport Plans, DETR. DETR (1999) Sustainable distribution: A Strategy, DETR. FTA (Freight Transport Association) (2008) Freight Quality Partnership Network. FTA (1997) Delivering the Goods: Best Practice in Urban Distribution, FTA. House of Commons Transport Committee (2008) Freight Transport, Eighth Report of Session 2007–08, HC 249, The Stationery Office. Jackson, M. (2003) Establishment and Progress of Freight Quality Partnerships in the UK, presentation at the BESTUFS Conference, Prague, 13-14 November 2003. Lowndes, V. (2001) Local partnerships and public participation, paper prepared for publication by IPPR Partnerships Commission, London. Ogden, K. (1992) Urban Goods Movement: A Guide to Policy and Planning, Ashgate, Aldershot.
49
50
PSD (2002), Personal communication from PSD (the Forum for Physical Distribution in Urban Areas) The Hague, the Netherlands. Scottish Executive (2005) Scotland’s Transport Future: Guidance on Local Transport Strategies, Scottish Executive. Shadow Road Haulage Forum (2000) Memorandum by The Shadow Road Haulage Forum (RH38), in Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs (2000) Fifteenth Report – Freight Transport, Session 1999-2000, House of Commons. Visser, J, (2004) The future of the national consultation platform PSD, e-Bulletin on City Logistics, Institute for City Logistics, 10 June 2004. Available at: http://www.citylogistics.org/e-Bulletin/02_e-Bulletin_2004_June.pdf Worthington, N. (2007) Freight maps: Are they on the right road?, Focus, Vol.9, No.8, pp.22-25.
Appendix 1: Summary of views on FQPs expressed in written evidence to House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008
Organisation Comment on FQPs in written evidence
Central London Freight Quality Partnership
“The key attributes of Freight Quality Partnerships is that they are flexible and “local”, working on an appropriate scale to achieve local results… Official referencing of Freight Quality Partnerships would lead to greater certainty of public sector funding. However, as the Freight Quality Partnerships develop and engage with more complex issues, there is no reason why they shouldn’t act as a conduit for private sector funding, for both their core administration costs, as well as the programmes that they promote…..There should be clear and realistic expectations for the outputs from Freight Quality Partnerships. They have a mixed role, operating in both operational and strategic spheres and being involved in short, medium and long term freight issues. They will therefore have a range of both qualitative and quantitative outputs. Through involvement in local and multiple area agreements they have the potential to play a much wider role in supporting both local and national economies, which will lead to a greater appreciation of the essential task that freight performs”.
Channel Corridor Partnership (CCP)
“Freight Quality Partnerships require the ability to deliver solutions otherwise they become a lobbying and consultative group. The solutions needed….require input at a much higher level to be successful”.
Department for Transport
“The Department…supports the establishment and development of Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) to provide a mechanism for the freight industry, local businesses, the local community, and local government to work together in partnership to produce tangible outcomes to real freight transport problems”.
DHL Express (UK) Limited
“From our experience, some of the freight quality partnerships work well; others are less effective. In London, for example, we believe that practical outcomes would be improved if a consistent approach was endorsed and applied across all the London boroughs. At present, each authority may impose different rules, causing problems when making deliveries across London. We would also recommend greater focus on the non-metropolitan areas”.
Faber Maunsell
“The work undertaken by Faber Maunsell suggests that Freight Quality Partnerships can be effective in improving the local experience of freight and deliveries but only when decisions are based on clear evidence of current freight operational practices, relevant stakeholder groups are engaged and that engagement maintained over the longer term and where the resultant “call to action” to the freight industry is communicated effectively and repeatedly”.
Freightliner Group Ltd “Freight Quality Partnerships (FQP) are primarily concerned with local issues of such scale as to not be relevant to rail operations, which are by their nature on a greater geographical scale. FQPs also tend to encourage road solutions to road problems, a fact which is likewise connected to their scale”.
Freight Transport Association (FTA)
“For industry, forging links with individual local authorities is vital to facilitate good local supply chains, and Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) have been a key means of achieving this…..As we would expect FQPs have achieved a mixed range of results with some more successful than others…. The effect that FQPs are having could be seen as limited but this is possibly because expectations for them are set too high. Quick wins, such as those outlined above, assist in the movement of freight which
51
benefits both industry and the general public. However, FTA’s experience is that local authorities are hamstrung when it comes to freight improvements due to a lack of resources—in personnel and funds to distribute. Local authority transport officers are keen to promote freight but struggle to overcome political obstacles because locally elected members will always tend to prioritise passenger transport”.
Institution of Highways & Transportation (IHT)
“The FQP follow on has been really impressive by linking groups of well meaning people to work together for a common objective. Much been learnt and achieved, but their brief has been narrow and now it should be widened and supported more by central government”.
London Councils Transport and Environment Committee
“London Councils recognises the value of Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) and believes they have the potential to greatly improve local freight conditions….. Successful FQPs need to be formed via a bottom-up approach i.e. by the boroughs involved.”
PD Ports Limited
“The freight quality partnerships experienced by PD Ports, for example in the Tees Valley, have been satisfactory at dealing with a number of local and tactical issues such as truck stops, signage and provision, as well as agreeing and/or highlighting/communicating preferred freight routes”.
Rail Freight Group (RFG)
“Rail freight has not seen any significant benefit from freight quality partnerships. They have tended to be local in focus whilst rail tends to focus on the medium and long distance traffics”.
Railfreight Interchange Investment Group (RIIG)
“We believe that suitably resourced and managed, FQPs can help bridge the gap between public and private sectors, in promoting greater understanding of respective roles and constraints and achieving joint solutions. Indeed our major interchange projects include specific provision to contribute to local FQPs, in some cases beyond their existing budget allocations, to help integrate these new schemes into the local environment and achieve their objectives to promote sustainable distribution”.
Road Haulage Association (RHA)
“FQPs are a relatively new phenomenon. In many cases, they provide a valuable forum for an honest, informed and focussed discussion, for thrashing out local issues and keeping freight moving. They highlight at an early stage initiatives from local authorities that might have adverse affects that had not been realised. In this way, damaging decisions have been avoided. At the same time “quick wins” resolving practical issues can be identified and implemented….The FQPs would benefit from stronger political will and appreciation of the role of road haulage….. We believe that FQPs should meet by exception rather than on a regular basis, regardless of the extent or urgency of issues to be discussed. We have experience of some FQPs “agenda hunting”; that is meeting without clear need”.
Transport for London (TfL)
“London’s FQPs are effective in improving the local experience of freight and deliveries and has robust mechanisms in place to ensure the continued effectiveness of these partnerships…..Further, the Local Implementation Plan Funding and Reporting Guidance emphasize the importance of delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and accordingly, London’s FQPs have to demonstrate their contribution to TfL’s Sustainable Freight progress measures”.
Source: extracted from House of Commons Transport Committee, 2008.
52
Appendix 2: List of FQPs identified in the UK
FQP Date started Date closed (or still
operating) Type of FQP Urban or rural focus Geographical area
Northern Ireland
Belfast 2000 thought to be no longer operating
Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Scotland
Aberdeen 1996 no longer operating - became North East
Scotland Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Argyll Timber Transport Group 1997 still operating Issue specific (timber) Predominantly rural Single LTP area
Ayrshire Timber Transport Liaison Group 1998 still operating Issue specific (timber) Predominantly rural Multiple LTP areas
Borders Timber Transport Group 1999 still operating Issue specific (timber) Predominantly rural Single LTP area
Dumfries & Galloway Timber Transport Group
not known still operating Issue specific (timber) Predominantly rural Single LTP area
Grampian Timber Transport Group 1996 still operating Issue specific (timber) Predominantly rural Multiple LTP areas
Highland Timber Transport Group 1996 still operating Issue specific (timber) Predominantly rural Single LTP area
Kilmarnock FQP 2001 no longer operating Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
North East of Scotland FQP 1998 still operating Regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
South East of Scotland Transport (SEStran) FQP
2007 still operating Regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
Stirling and Tayside Timber Transport 2005 still operating Issue specific (timber) Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
53
Group
Strathclyde FQP 2007 still operating Regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
Tayside and Central Scotland Transport (TACTRAN) Regional FQP
2008 still operating Regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
Wales
Wales Timber Transport Group 2002 still operating Issue specific (timber) Predominantly rural Multiple LTP areas
England
Birmingham FQP 1996 no longer operating Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Brimsdown FQP 2002 still operating Part of an urban area Urban Single LTP area
Bristol and Neighbouring Authorities' FQP 2002 still operating Sub-regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
Buckinghamshire FQP 2004 no longer operating (but may restart in
near future) County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Cambridgeshire FQP 2006 still operating County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Canterbury FQP 2000 2002 Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Central London FQP 2006 still operating Part of an urban area Urban Multiple LTP areas
Chester FQP 1996 no longer operating Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Cornwall FQP 1999 no longer operating County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Cornwall (Imerys) FQP 2003 no longer operating Issue specific (mineral / quarrying)
Urban and rural Single LTP area
54
Derby and Derbyshire FQP 2000 still operating Entire town or city and county-wide
Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
Devon FQP 2009 still operating County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Dibden Terminal and the Waterside FQP 2002 2002 Site specific (Port) Urban Single LTP area
Dorset FQP 2001 still operating
(dormant for a period) County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
East Grinstead FQP 2001 thought to be no longer operating
Part of an urban area Urban Single LTP area
East Midlands Regional Freight Group 2006 still operating Regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull FQP 2006 still operating Entire town or city and county-wide
Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
Eastern Regional FQP not known still operating Regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
Epsom & Ewell FQP 2001??? still operating Part of an urban area Urban Single LTP area
Exeter FQP 2000 2005 Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Gloucestershire FQP 2002 still operating County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Greater Manchester FQP 2002 still operating Sub-regional Urban Multiple LTP areas
Guildford FQP 2000 still operating Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Hampshire FQP 1999 still operating
(dormant 2004-2007) County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Felixstowe FQP 2008 still operating Site specific (Port) Urban Single LTP area
55
Isle of Wight Freight Forum 2007 still operating County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Islington FQP 2007 still operating Part of an urban area Urban Single LTP area
Kent FQP 2001 2002 County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Leicester & Leicestershire FQP 2000 still operating
(dormant 2007-2008) Entire town or city and county-wide
Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
London Sustainable Distribution Partnership
2002 still operating Regional Urban Multiple LTP areas
Merseyside & Halton FQP 2000 still operating Sub-regional Urban Multiple LTP areas
Newton Abbot FQP 2000 2005 Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
National Timber Transport Forum 2000 still operating Issue specific (timber) Predominantly rural Multiple LTP areas
North Devon FQP 2001 2008 Part of a county or unitary authority (rural and urban)
Urban and rural Single LTP area
North East Lincolnshire FQP 2003 still operating
(dormant for a period)
Part of a county or unitary authority (rural and urban)
Urban and rural Single LTP area
North Somerset Freight Working Group not known still operating Part of a county or unitary authority (rural and urban)
Urban and rural Single LTP area
North West Freight Advisory Group 1999 thought to be no longer operating
Regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
North West Surrey FQP 2007 still operating Part of a county or unitary authority (rural and urban)
Urban and rural Single LTP area
56
North Yorkshire Timber Transport Group 2004 still operating
(dormant for a period) Issue specific (timber) Urban and rural Single LTP area
Northamptonshire Freight Group 2000 still operating
(dormant for a period) County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Greater Nottinghamshire FQP 1999 still operating Entire town or city and county-wide
Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
Oxfordshire FQP 2003 2007 County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Preston FQP 2006 still operating Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Reading FQP
Borough/FTA planning started
1998, FQP first met 1999 / 2001
no longer operating Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Ripon FQP 2001 no longer operating Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Settle Area FQP 2003 still operating
(dormant for a period) Issue specific (mineral / quarrying)
Urban Single LTP area
Somerset FQP 2001 still operating County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
South Devon FQP 2008 2009 Part of a county or unitary authority (rural and urban)
Predominantly rural Single LTP area
South Hams FQP 2004 2007 Part of a county or unitary authority (rural and urban)
Predominantly rural Single LTP area
South London FQP 2005 still operating Sub-regional Urban Multiple LTP areas
South West Regional Freight Forum 2003 still operating Regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
57
(dormant for a period)
Southampton FQP 2000 2004 Part of an urban area Urban Single LTP area
Spelthorne, Elmbridge and Runnymede FQP
2005??? still operating Site specific (Bridge) Urban Single LTP area
Stansted FQP 2007 still operating Site specific (Airport) Urban Single LTP area
Stevenage FQP 2001 2004 Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Stockton-on-Tees FQP not known still operating Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Storrington FQP 2000 thought to be no longer operating
Rural Rural Single LTP area
Sutton Bank FQP 2004 still operating
(dormant for a period) Site specific (Steep, dangerous road)
Rural Single LTP area
Tees Valley FQP 2002 2004 Sub-regional Urban and rural Multiple LTP areas
Thames Gateway FQP 2007 still operating Sub-regional Urban Multiple LTP areas
Torbay FQP 2003 2008 (merged with South Devon FQP)
Part of a county or unitary authority (rural and urban)
Urban Single LTP area
Tyne & Wear Freight Partnership 2005 still operating Sub-regional Urban Multiple LTP areas
Vale of Evesham FQP 2004 still operating Rural Rural Multiple LTP areas
Warwickshire FQP 2002 still operating County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
West London FQP 2003 still operating Sub-regional Urban Multiple LTP areas
West Midlands FQP 2001 still operating Regional Urban Multiple LTP areas
58
59
West Yorkshire FQP 2000 2005 Sub-regional Urban Multiple LTP areas
Wiltshire FQP 2000 still operating County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
Winchester FQP 2001 2004 Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Woking FQP 2003???? 2007 Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Worcestershire FQP 2002 still operating County-wide Urban and rural Single LTP area
York (City of) FQP 2006 still operating (but dormant since first
meeting) Entire town or city Urban Single LTP area
Appendix 3: FQP Questionnaire
60
FQP questionnaire General information about your FQP Name of respondent: Organisation of respondent: Telephone number: Fax number: Email: Name of FQP: Year that your FQP was established: Year that your FQP ended (if appropriate): (If your FQP is established at a county or regional scale and contains more than one town or area FQP please provide details of the names of each of the FQPs that it contains above) Please list the main reason(s) that your FQP was established (up to five reasons): Please name the organisation that took the lead in establishing your FQP: Please provide details of your FQPs written objectives and/or Terms of Reference (if you have these) What type of organisations are members of your FQP? (please tick all appropriate options)
Coverage of FQP Please tick as many as appropriate
Local authority Freight Transport Association Road Haulage Association Other freight trade associations Other trade associations Chamber of Commerce Other local business groups Professional bodies Freight transport companies Retailers Manufacturers Service companies Other companies Police Town Centre Manager Environmental / civic amenity groups Resident groups Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Other (please specify)
61
How many organisations are members of your FQP? How would you describe the coverage (geographical or otherwise) of your FQP? (please tick one option)
Coverage of FQP Please tick one option
Site specific One of a few streets Part of urban area Entire town or city Regional Rural area Issue specific Other (please specify)
Work, successes and achievements of your FQP Which of the following activities has your FQP been involved in? (please tick as many as appropriate)
Activities Please tick as many as appropriate
Brief description
Data collection/survey work
Research projects (e.g. feasibility studies, scoping studies, evaluation studies)
Infrastructure projects
Implementation of new/revised policy measures
Information provision (e.g. freight maps, freight guidance, guide books etc.)
Consultation work (i.e. working with freight transport stakeholders on a particular issue)
Other (please specify)
62
Which of the following specific topics has your FQP addressed and how has this been achieved?
Topics Please tick as many as appropriate
Brief description of work carried out into topic
Loading and unloading provision
Loading and unloading restrictions and fines
Vehicle access (times or weights/sizes)
Signing
Traffic information
Telematics
Driver training
Good practice in freight operations
Vehicle utilisation
Strategic planning
Road pricing
Low Emission Zones / emissions regulations
Environmentally friendly vehicles
Congestion
Conflicts between goods vehicles and other road users
Reducing the number and impacts of deliveries
Out of hours deliveries
Lorry routeing
Lorry lanes
Overnight parking
Home deliveries
Urban consolidation centres
Bicycle delivery
Enforcement issues
Rail freight work
Water freight work
Other (please specify)
63
Which of the following outputs has your FQP produced? (please tick as many as appropriate and provide brief details)
Outputs Please tick as many as appropriate
Brief description
Newsletters
Brochures
Feasibility/evaluation studies
Project reports
Maps
Guides
Good practice information
Advertising campaign
Meetings for the FQP members
Seminars, workshops, conferences for the FQP members
Seminars, workshops, conferences for a wider audience
Other
If your FQP produces a Newsletter and/or publicly-available minutes please would you send copies. Does your FQP have a website? Yes/No If Yes, please provide web address In your opinion what have been the most important achievement of your FQP? (List up to 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In your opinion what are the most important actions and outputs of your FQP? (List up to 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
64
In your opinion what are the most important actions that your FQP is currently working on? (List up to 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In your opinion in what ways has your FQP made a difference (compared with if it had not been established)? (List up to 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In your opinion what have been the greatest challenges faced by your FQP? (List up to 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In your opinion what have been the greatest failings of your FQP? (List up to 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In your opinion what have been the most important lessons you have learned in running an FQP? (List up to 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
65
In your opinion to what extent do you think your FQP has improved partnership working between the public and private sector? (pleas tick one option)
Improved partnership working a lot Improved partnership working a little Made no difference to partnership working Worsened partnership working a little Worsened partnership working a lot
Please provide a brief explanation for your answer… Funding your FQP How much funding does the FQP typically receive per annum? £ per annum What is the source(s) of the funding? Please list Does the private sector make a financial contribution towards the costs of the FQP? Yes/No If Yes, approximately what proportion of the total FQP funding is provided by the private sector? % How many staff (in full-time person equivalents - FTE) are funded to manage and run the FQP on a day-to-day basis? (i.e. one person funded to work for half their time on the FQP is equal to 0.5 FTE) FTE Do the FQP annual costs described above include the costs of the day-to-day management and running of the FQP? Yes/No
66
Views on the FQP concept and approach in the UK Please could you briefly provide your views on the FQP concept in the UK. What more (if anything) do you think that central government should do to assist in FQP work? In general, do you think the FQP approach has helped to encourage partnership working between the public and private sectors? Yes/No (please provide a brief explanation of your answer) In general, do you think the FQP approach has provided good value for money in the UK? Yes/No (please provide a brief explanation of your answer) To what extent do you think your FQP could learn from the knowledge and experiences of other FQPs in the UK? (please tick one answer)
A lot A little Not at all
To what extent have you bee able to obtain and make use of approaches and ideas developed in other FQPs in the UK in your FQP? (please tick one answer)
A lot A little Not at all
67
About which of the following topics would it be/have been most useful for your FQP to be/have been able to access information and ideas from other FQPs? (please tick as many as appropriate and rank the 3 most important)
Topics Please tick as many as appropriate
Please rank the 3 most important
Setting up an FQP
Deciding the issues to be dealt with by an FQP
Managing day-to-day working with FQP members
Carrying out data collection/survey work
Carrying out research projects (e.g. feasibility studies, scoping studies, evaluation studies)
Implementing infrastructure projects
Implementing new/revised policy measures
Developing consultation work (i.e. working with freight transport stakeholders on a particular issue)
Developing non-road freight work (i.e. rail and water)
Producing newsletters
Producing Brochures
Producing maps
Producing guides
Producing good practice information
Producing advertising campaigns
Organising meetings for FQP members
Organising seminars, workshops, and conferences
Other (please specify)
Which of the following ideas do you think would benefit the FQP approach in the UK? (please tick as many as appropriate and indicate which you think is the most important)
Idea Please tick as many as appropriate
Please indicate the most important
National FQP website National FQP forum National FQP Annual Conference Other
68
69
To what extent has your FQP been in contact with other FQPs in the UK to exchange information and ideas?
A lot A little Not at all
Please name FQPs you have had this contact with. Has your FQP had any contact with international FQPs (or similar)? Yes/No If Yes, please name these FQPs/organisations Thank you very much for completing the questionnaire. We will send you a copy of the report based on this FQP research when it is available. Please return your completed questionnaire by Friday 1 July 2009 to: Julian Allen Transport Studies Department University of Westminster Tel. 020 7911 5000 extension 3002 Fax: 020 7911 5057 Email: [email protected] Please would you also send any documents and material produced by your FQP that you think may be useful to us as part of this review to us with your completed questionnaire.