WEST OF ENGLAND PARTNERSHIP PLANNING, TRANSPORT & ENVIRONMENT GROUP MINUTES OF THE MEETING 26 TH JUNE 2008 THORNBURY LEISURE CENTRE PRESENT:

Transcription

1 WEST OF ENGLAND PARTNERSHIP PLANNING, TRANSPORT & ENVIRONMENT GROUP MINUTES OF THE MEETING 26 TH JUNE 2008 THORNBURY LEISURE CENTRE PRESENT: Local authorities Bath & North East Somerset Council Cllr Colin Darracott Bristol City Council Cllr Dennis Brown Cllr John Rogers Cllr Barbara Lewis (Chair) North Somerset Council Cllr David Jolley Cllr David Pasley Cllr Tom Leimdorfer Cllr Howard Roberts South Gloucestershire Council Cllr James Hunt Cllr Pat Hockey (Vice Chair) Cllr Ian Smith Cllr Mike Thomas Social, Economic & Environmental Partners: Hilary Severn - Campaign to Protect Rural England Nigel Hutchings Business West Vincent Nadin University of the West of England Other Attendees: David Fletcher South West Regional Assembly Steve Tyler TUC Julie Boston Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways Pip Sheard Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance Ian Crawford Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance David Halkyard Gloucestershire County Council 1. Apologies for absence Cllr Charles Gerrish Cllr Caroline Roberts Cllr Bob Cook Cllr Alex Woodman Cllr Mark Bradshaw Cllr John Bull Cllr Elfan ap Rees Cllr Brian Allinson Phil Dominey South West Trains Andrew Griffiths First Great Western

2 Anne Lock and David Redgewell Campaign for Better Transport Dick Whittington Community Action David Johnson UWE Richard Antliff Somerset County Council Ron Davies Highways Agency Michael Reep North Somerset Council Keith Walton Severnside Community Rail Partnership 2. Statements from the public Julie Boston from Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways asked for clarification regarding the meeting with Tom Harris, Under Secretary of State for Transport, cross Bristol train services, Network Rail funding and the Portishead line. Copies of her statement were circulated to members and reproduced below along with a written response. A statement to be submitted to the MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP OF WEST OF ENGLAND PARTNERSHIP on Thursday 26 June Lobbying and the electorate I would like to thank James White, Team Leader Transport Policy, West of England Partnership Office, for responding to my statement of 21/02/08 by listing the five point programme on rail in the WEP area which involved Andrew Haines, Chief Operating Officer, First Great Western and Tom Harris, Under Secretary of State for Transport. My questions are how were elected members involved? How did WEP, on behalf of the elected members, report these unsuccessful meetings with Tom Harris MP to the electorate? Through WEP website? Through BBC regional news? Through the local papers? Through the rail unions? Others? Rail Vision The 2006/7 2010/11 Final Joint Local Transport Plan (5.2.45) Rail Vision envisaged a 30 minute clockface frequency to suburban Bristol stations in the partnership's area. If little progress has been made because of central government s inertia, a considerable amount of officer time and WEP resources has been wasted. Have our MPs taken this up? Delighted that the Rail Project Group (4 UAs, WEPO, corridor Network Rail, DfT, GOSW, First Great Western, Severnside Community Rail Partnership) are looking at ways to implement ½ hourly cross Bristol services focusing on Weston to Yate. Is there an update on relaying tracks at Worle Junction? Which has priority in re-signalling and turn back facilities Yate or Clifton Down Stations? If Clifton Down turnback has precedence can this be justified as the best use of public money? Would members not agree that the public is frustrated by lack of progress on transport in the region? The front page treatment of the proposed re-opening of Ashton Gate station, a supportive Evening Post editorial and s from the public (BEP 10 June 2008) for FOSBR s suggestion shows the public s desire for action. Bristol City councillors showed their support by voting for a 40 minute service on the Severn Beach Line for 3 years. Will councillors in the WEP show the same commitment? We argue that financial commitment sends a strong message to central government. Capital and revenue expenditure Has the WEP applied for funding from the National / Network Rail budget settlement? ( I will check with David Redgewell) Southmead Hospital does the WEP support a station to serve the hospital in view of congested hospital parking? 1) A new station on the Henbury line would require restored passenger service.2) Reopening of Horfield station would require the installation of four-tracking of Bristol-Filton Abbey Wood line. Is Ashton Gate Station included in the Portishead plans? Thank you for your time. Julie Boston (secretary FOSBR) West of England response

3 a) Lobbying, the electorate and the Tom Harris visit The Executive Members for transport from the four councils, Chair and Vice Chair of Planning, Transport and Environment Group (PTEG), Chair of the West of England Partnership were all involved in the visit to Tom Harris. Far from being unsuccessful the meeting was a good opportunity to demonstrate the four councils working together, raise the profile of the West of England and the importance of rail and the growth agenda. Informal feedback from Department for Transport officers and a letter from Tom Harris highlight how useful they found the meeting too. A press release with a photograph of the Executive Members and local M.P.s meeting up at the House of Commons was sent out but regrettably was not picked up by any of the local media. A more proactive approach will be taken next time and the appointment of a Joint Transport Press Officer will greatly assist this. b) Rail Vision, half hourly cost Bristol services and other schemes Half hourly cross Bristol train services remain a priority with its inclusion in the evidence to be submitted to the Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) consultation. The RUS is looking at ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of and develop the network. Overseen by Network Rail the consultation process is a golden opportunity to highlight key West of England schemes and get them included in the RUS. Yate turnback is included in Network Rail s Business Plan (April 2008) for implementation in 2011/12 subject to third party funding. Early estimates suggest a cost of around 3m. It is also included in the West of England RUS evidence. First Great Western, Network Rail and Bristol City Council are funding Clifton Down turnback. This is a low cost scheme, around 100,000, with possible implementation in autumn/winter 2008/09. Worle Junction is included in Network Rail s Business Plan (April 2008) for implementation in 2009 with funding from the Network Rail Discretionary Fund. c) Capital and Revenue Expenditure, applying for funds, Southmead and Portishead There is some confusion over applying for funding from the Network Rail budget settlement. The budget settlement is for Network Rail and is not for outside parties to apply for. There is a role for the West of England to play in engaging with Network Rail to ensure key schemes are included in their Business Plan and in the RUS process. Reopening the Henbury line is included in the Joint Local Transport Plan s Rail Action Plan and will also form part of the Route Utilisation Strategy evidence. It should be noted that previous study work (2003) into reopening the line found there was no economic case. Three tracking of the line up to Filton is included in the West of England RUS evidence. This is to help deliver half hourly cross Bristol services and improve the reliability of the Severn Beach line rather than open new stations. North Somerset Council s new study into the reopening of Portishead includes a range of options for new services and stations at Pill and Ashton Gate.

4 Previous statements to Planning, Transport and Environment Group (PTEG) Concern was expressed that responses to statements from the 29 th February 2008 meeting had not been circulated. These are reproduced below. STATEMENT by Stephen Kinsella received by WEPO on 28 February at 14.26pm To West of England Partnership Transport Planning and Environment Group meeting 10:00AM 29 February 2008 I have two overlapping interests in making this statement: I represent CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, and I am an environmental consultant dealing with climate change mitigation and sustainability. It is welcome news that Bristol is to bid for a share of 47million for "Cycling City", and Weston-super-Mare is to bid for "Cycling Town". More and more people in the area are enjoying the benefits of cycling to work and for recreation. The cycle transport officers of both Bristol City Council and North Somerset are dedicated and committed, and deserve to win these bids. The single most effective way of getting more people to cycle is 20mph speed limits in residential and shopping areas. Potential cyclists are deterred by high speeds. 20mph zones or defaults exist in towns such as Portsmouth and Hull, are recently confirmed for Norwich, and are being considered in London, Oxford, and many other towns. Surveys show that more than 80% of people interviewed want a 20 mph speed limit on the streets where they live, and the Audit Commission found that 75% of drivers believe that 20 mph is an appropriate maximum speed for residential roads. Some towns such as Hull have seen reductions of 60% in accident rates with very little effect of traffic flows or journey times. In fact, by maintaining 30 mph on arterial roads, most urban journeys will be increased by only seconds through the adoption of 20mph speed limits in residential streets. 20 mph in residential streets of Bristol and Weston-super-Mare would provide a real increase in quality of life for residents with less noise, slower traffic, a more peaceful environment and the ability for children to walk or cycle to school. I recommend both Councils to have 20mph as the headline feature of their bids, followed by soft measures such as cycle training and personal travel planning. The emphasis must be on traffic and speed reduction before new cycle facilities. Additionally, Bristol has its unique linear park and path, free of motor traffic, used by both cyclists and pedestrians - the Bristol and Bath Railway Path. This path's success is due to its combination of wildlife corridor, public open space, and mature overhanging trees, with a good surface, few obstructions and road crossings, and ample access. It is a pleasant place to go, and many thousands start cycling there. With 20mph speed limits, new bike users would be led on to the streets and start a step-change in sustainable travel and health. But the Cycling City bid will be jeopardized if West of England Partnership persists with the threat of redeveloping the Railway Path as a Bus Rapid Transit track. Unfortunately, this would destroy the path's park like ambience. Its rural character would be irretrievably lost, and the remaining path alongside the bus tracks would become a place to avoid. I ask West of England Partnership to think carefully over the implications of its current proposals for Bus Rapid Transit, and proceed with the Cycling England bids against a background of proposed sustainable public transport routes that do not damage existing assets or spoil Bristol's reputation for supporting an increase in cycling. West of England response Dear Mr Kinsella Thank you for your statement to the Planning, Transport and Environment Group meeting of the 29th February, regarding the Bristol City Council led bid for Bristol to become a

5 `Cycling City'. I have noted your request for more widespread use of 20 mph zones to encourage cycling, and have passed your to Bristol City Council's Traffic Management team for a direct response to you on this issue. However, I am specifically responding to your concerns over the potential impact on the Bristol to Bath railway path of Rapid Transit proposals for the Ashton Vale to Emerson s Green corridor and the amenity value of the corridor. The West of England needs a fundamental improvement in the provision of sustainable transport, in order to tackle traffic congestion and enable the sub-region to accommodate new development. In 2006 The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) identified the need for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as the most appropriate mode to successfully address the transport impact of predicted housing and employment development in the sub-region over the next 20 years. The vision for BRT is to provide a system of rapid, reliable, frequent and comfortable services to attract substantial numbers of car users and reduce congestion. The overall approach would be to provide a very high quality system, with the feel and appearance of a tram but with significantly lower cost infrastructure. This would be delivered through a network of sustainable transport corridors with segregated public transport (i.e. separated from general traffic) combined with highquality cyclist and pedestrian links. Four BRT corridors were identified in GBSTS, and three of these were included in the South West Regional Funding Allocation for major transport schemes to be delivered up to 2015/16. These corridors are: Ashton Vale to Emerson s Green; Hengrove to North Fringe; and Bath to Cribbs Causeway. Although led by the Government Office for the South West, the emerging recommendations of GBSTS guided the formulation of the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) which was endorsed by full council meetings of the four unitary authorities prior to submission to the Department for Transport in April 2006, including the inclusion of the above three corridors in the sub-region's transport major scheme programme set out in the JLTP. Work is progressing on the Ashton Vale to Emerson s Green and Hengrove to North Fringe corridors and we are looking at a range of route options within each corridor. The corridor between Ashton Vale and Emerson s Green includes an option to run alongside the Bristol to Bath Railway Path, as well on-street options and other combinations of these. Design and appraisal work on all the options (both on and off-street) is being undertaken to the same level of detail to enable an informed and transparent decision to be made on which option performs best for all users of the corridor. The appraisals will also include impact assessment (environmental, land and other impacts) as well as an assessment of the merits of all the options in transport terms (including their impact on pedestrians and cyclists). Work is continuing on the other sustainable transport corridors in the network. Design work undertaken to date on the cycle path option has included the identification of a wider parallel path for cyclists and pedestrians, and incorporates route enhancements to improve security and cycling links into the city centre compared with the current facilities, with the intention of maintaining and where possible increasing use of the route by cyclists and walkers. A full environmental assessment will be undertaken to assess the impact of the scheme on habitats, vegetation and the amenity value of the route, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. Plans are still in the process of being drawn up, with the intention of undertaking a public consultation exercise in Spring 2008 to allow the opportunity for people's views and

6 opinions to influence the development of the scheme. In order for the sub-region to obtain the regional funding allocated, a `Major Scheme' funding bid needs to be submitted to the Department for Transport by Autumn 2008 to meet the Regional Funding Allocation programme. Should this be successful construction could commence in 2011 with the scheme opening in We believe that the robust and transparent assessment of both on-street and off-street options in the corridor, together with provision of better cycling infrastructure along the corridor and mitigation measures to be identified through the environmental studies, will maintain the attractiveness of the path for both cyclists and pedestrians. We are just at the start of the process of developing a scheme we believe will provide a real difference to the travel options for people in this sub-region, including improvements to and increased use of walking and cycling, and would like to keep you informed of our progress. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Yours sincerely Bill Davies Joint Transport Team West of England Partnership Friends of Suburban Railways Statement to the Planning, Transport and Environment Group meeting of 29/02/08 As West of England Partnership meetings are held in the daytime, working people are unable to attend. The list below shows how people in the region have been attempting to influence local transport policy despite this restriction. In February 2006, FOSBR collected over 3000 signatures calling for full use of Bristol s suburban railway network. We delivered the petitions to the West of England Partnership. On Saturday 11 March 2006, Stephen Williams MP and Kerry McCarthy MP travelled from Temple Meads to Severn Beach on the train and signed a statement for FOSBR in support of a half hour service on the local rail network. On 27 February 2007, following FOSBR s high profile campaign, Bristol City councillors voted to invest in an extra train to run between Temple Meads and Avonmouth Stations on weekdays until 2010 In August 2007, over 100 people attended a meeting in Southmead to protest at the expensive and unreliable bus service provided by First Group. On 28 January 2008, passengers at Yate, Yatton, Bath, Oldfield Park, Frome and Bristol took part in a Fare Strike organised by More Train Less Strain. Passengers showed that they will not tolerate the expensive and unreliable service provided by First Great Western any more, and that the government must take back the franchise from FGW. On February? over 150 people set up a campaign to save the Bristol & Bath Railway Path, Greenways and sustainable routes used by pedestrians, the disabled & cyclists. How the West of England Partnership can transform our lives We look forward to the creation of an Integrated Transport Authority but know that the West of England Partnership can act now. 1 FOSBR challenge the argument, no doubt shared by the four local authorities, that the Partnership has no power over rail. This is not our experience.

7 In response to FOSBR s campaign, Bristol City Council allocated over 1 million, to be spread over 3 years, in the 2006 / 7 budget. This investment confirmed that Bristol City Council can act as a Transport Authority. The Partnership has similar power. 2 FOSBR saw a half-hourly service between Avonmouth and Temple Meads Station as a first step. We now urge the West of England Partnership to adhere to the improved rail policy in the Final Joint Local Transport Plan. We urge you to divert money, currently budgeted for road building, to rail. Investment in a 30 minute frequency to all 26 suburban Bristol stations in the partnership's area would provide the basis of an integrated transport network across the region. 3 Whilst we support the concept of showcase bus routes, we are concerned at the enormous reduction in bus passenger trips in the last five years. Bus services, also, are limited by the narrowness of roads, congestion and the need for parking. Only rail can provide a quick route between parts of the city, into the city centre and throughout the region. 4 Employment - A Bath based business is finding it impossible to recruit because of transport being unpredictable and too expensive especially for young graduates. Three successful candidates living outside Bath, North Bristol and Weston Super Mare have rejected the job. The result is that the firm will outsource the work but the employment option will be lost for ever. FOSBR will distribute copies of the document Travelling in the wrong direction (produced by the Campaign for Better Transport in February 2008) to delegates Showing CO2 emissions of all forms of transport. We look forward to the creation of an Integrated Transport Authority but believe that, with the political will and the co-operation of the four authorites, the West of England Partnership can act now. The local rail infrastructure as a whole represents an enormous potential asset that could greatly reduce congestion in the Bristol area, delivering economic, social and environmental benefits to the city as a whole. The alternative will be blighted lives. Julie Boston (co-ordinator FOSBR) West of England response In their statement to the West of England Partnership s Planning, Transport and Environment Group meeting on 29/2/08 the Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways made four points (see above). A response to each point is provided below. 1) West of England Partnership Office s power over rail The West of England Partnership Office (WEPO) has no revenue raising powers with which to support rail services. WEPO takes a strategic role on transport, for example producing the Joint Local Transport Plan and co-ordinating major scheme bids. It is not a public transport provider. Funding for WEPO is through the four councils of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. WEPO has taken a leading role over rail issues organising meetings with Andrew Haines, Chief Operating Officer, First Great Western and Tom Harris, Under Secretary of State for Transport. On four separate occasions over the last twelve months WEPO has written to Tom Harris expressing our concerns over local rail issues. On 1/03/07 a rail summit bringing together the rail industry, Department for Transport and stakeholders was organised by WEPO to address the continuing concerns over rail. 2) 30 minute service for Bristol suburban stations

8 As a result of the rail summit held on 1/03/07 a Rail Project Group has been set up comprising the four councils, WEPO, Network Rail, Department for Transport, Government Office for the South West, First Great Western and the Severnside Community Rail Partnership. The Group is looking at ways to implement ½ hourly cross Bristol services focusing initially on the Weston-super-Mare to Yate corridor. 3) Enormous reduction in bus passenger trips This is untrue. Bus use went up by 1.2m passengers (2%) 2001 to 2006 in the West of England area. For year one of the Joint Local Transport Plan 2006/07 bus use was up 2% compared with the 2003/04 baseline. Whilst rail has an important role to play in tackling congestion and improving accessibility it should be recalled its modal share is small accounting for 1.6% of all trips to work in the West of England area and 2.5% of all trips in the peak hour. On key strategic corridors this mode share rises to 10% to 15% but overall buses remain the main form of public transport. 4) Employment Whilst the costs and availability of transport will have some influence over an individual s choice of where to live and work other factors such as the cost of housing, low crime rates, good schools and local facilities will have an equal if not greater impact. West of England Partnership Office 8 April Minutes of meeting on 29 th February 2008 The minutes of the meeting were agreed as accurate, with one amendment: Councillor Mike Thomas was present and his name will be added to the record. Bill Davies from the West of England Partnership Office provided an update on Bus Rapid Transit. He restated Bristol City Council s position on the Bristol to Bath railway path route option as set out at the full Council meeting on 1 April He emphasised that WEPO was co-ordinating studies into a range of route options on this corridor including on street running. On rail issues it was regretted that First Great Western could not attend. 4. Update on Transport Governance Terry Wagstaff from the West of England Partnership Office provided an update following the presentations and workshop at the PTEG meeting on 29 th February A handout with future structures and membership for a Partnership Board supported by two Joint Committees for transport and waste and a Programme Board for planning, housing and communities was circulated. A Joint Scrutiny Committee will be set up with 3 Members from each council. Short life sub groups to deal with work peaks will be set up and they will be able to call upon witnesses, co-optees and social, economic and environmental partners. The Department for Transport see the proposals as a valuable and constructive

9 and a major step towards better governance. The Joint Transport Committee is the proposal at the moment. An Integrated Transport Authority raises issues around separating transport from other agendas and as a funding body will take time to set up. There is no provision for future PTEG meetings but members will be engaged through the scrutiny process. A detailed discussion followed covering issues including: Meetings open to the public normal committee procedures with meetings open to the public with public statements. Up to Scrutiny to decide how it will run. Programme Board will not be public but it may move to a committee. Culture, leisure and rural meetings will be officer only. Who will provide the service through the West of England Partnership Office with a committee clerk. No special team with support work undertaken by unitary authorities and WEPO. Workload may need to be prioritised. Role of Cabinets/Councils would approve future Joint Local Transport Plan on recommendation of Joint Transport Committee. Committee would oversee implementation with safeguard that 3 of the 4 unitary authorities can not impose a scheme in the area of the other unitary authority without their agreement. Make up of Scrutiny up to each council to decide representation. Typically one member from each of the main political parties. Opportunity to invite commercial organisations to attend. Likely date for the first meeting is 11 July Will there be just one Scrutiny Yes. One Scrutiny covers transport, waste, planning, housing, communities, economy and skills. Concerns expressed over the workload. Discussion on powers needs to continue and focus on services not just infrastructure Business West agreed there was a need for an authority and the informality of the Joint Committees were the best fit for now. It was proposed that PTEG be formally wound up. Terry Wagstaff will tell PTEG who the 12 Scrutiny members will be. 5. Climate Change Seminar David Fletcher from the South West Regional Assembly outlined the Climate Change Action Plan with its appropriate actions and priorities the result of extensive consultation, workshops and evidence gathering. Action Plan needs to be seen in the context of a growing region with housing, transport and economic impacts. A shortened version of the Action Plan with an agreed top ten priorities was circulated. Alex Minshull from Bristol City Council and Jane Thompson from South Gloucestershire Council gave a presentation on what s happening in the West of England. The new National Indicator (NI) 186 measures emissions from gas, electricity and local transport but not motorways.

10 Bristol City Council has a Climate Protection and Sustainable Energy Strategy (2004), Bristol A Green Capital (2007) and 3% year on year carbon reduction targets. Bath and North East Somerset s Our Big Energy Challenge has a 5 year carbon reduction plan. 41 schools are now eco schools. South Gloucestershire Council have a Strategic Environment Partnership. 61% of emissions are from business and more needs to be done to tackle these. Council has its own 3% per annum carbon reduction target. Futurenergy initiative provides advice on saving energy and 500 grant on top of 400 Government grant. Low interest loans being introduced. North Somerset Council have a Mainstreaming Sustainability Action Plan with a 15% target for on site renewables in new developments. 29m is being spent on sea front defences in Weston-super-Mare. 36 schools in the eco school programme making over 200 across the West of England. Challenge for the four councils to work together for greater efficiency and impact. Climate proof decisions needed in all work areas for example in congestion and carbon reduction. We need to do more and especially reduce the impacts of waste. A discussion then followed raising issues that included: Housing on flood plains look at Dutch experience to manage. Bus/train not mentioned and no map for getting to Thornbury all UAs actively involved in promoting sustainable transport. Maps will be provided for future events. Climate change is a natural process - need to plan for but it is not an excuse to increase taxes. Transport is a large producer of CO2 emissions - need to understand the regional transport picture better. Expansion of Bristol International Airport (BIA) aviation not included in NI 186 and most emissions are from surface transport. Controls on aviation are in the gift of the Government, surface access in local authority control. South West airports are more efficient using turbo prop planes. Car sharing increasing car occupancy has the greatest potential for carbon reduction now and is achievable introducing the concept of going for low hanging fruit. However, a 1% reduction in road mileage requires a 12% increase in rail capacity and 13% for bus. A Mori poll revealed that 69% said they would not car share. Street lighting second highest energy use in South Gloucestershire. North Somerset has an experimental scheme. LED lighting being trialled in Holland. Un-insulated houses 600,000 houses in the South West are un-insulated. Some older houses/listed buildings need less retro fitting as well designed in the first place.

11 Funding and grants from utilities once Government targets reached there is no incentive for utilities to carry on. Members need to lobby Government to improve incentives. Stop/start nature of Government funding members need to lobby Government. Grants for energy improvements and renewable energy - needs to be simplified e.g. one stop shops Sharing best practice seminar was useful for members and officers to find out what all four Councils and the South West are doing. Business role Business West working with the South West Regional Development Agency to improve energy efficiency. Issue that the majority of business are small and Carbon Trust only work with large companies. Landfill dykes and reclaim land for housing in North Somerset would require use of inert waste as domestic waste is biodegradable and would not be strong enough. Clear and positive messages about climate change impacts and what can be done to mitigate. A final point on the need to reduce the need for energy and that we should not rely on the Government alone was noted. 6. Any other business The loss of expertise from reducing the numbers of members on PTEG from 5 to 3 on the new Scrutiny was noted.