Agenda item

To update the committee on transport matters including Integrated Transport Authority powers; Key Route Network; Bus Strategy; Mass Transit proposal; Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, MetroWest Phase 1A and 1B, and to seek views and feedback from members. 

The Committee received an update on progress of the Integrated Transport Authority powers; Key Route Network; Bus Strategy; Mass Transit proposal; and Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan; Members were asked to give their views and feedback on these issues. Detailed reports on the matters were being submitted to the 30 November WECA Committee.  The report also clarified the position regarding Bus Service 10 which was an issue raised by members of the Committee previously.

It was reported that the senior transport officers at the Combined Authority were attending a pre-arranged meeting at the Department for Transport (DfT) but all comments made would be recorded as part of the Committee’s statement to the main Committee meetings.

The following issues were raised:

• The Chair raised the issue of franchised bus services, with the Combined Authority having the power to deal with franchised services.  However, other members stated there was a lack of other successful models, with the only authority that had gone down the franchising route was London, which heavily subsidised the services.  Greater Manchester Combined Authority area was currently investigating the possibility and the West of England could possibly use some of the conclusions drawn.  It was noted that the full report may take some time to be published;
• Another possibility was for the Authority to investigate ‘enhanced partnerships’ which some other authorities had investigated but none had taken up.  This was a new power to authorities granted by the DfT and included some of the franchising powers.  However, it was noted that the local bus companies had been reluctant to set up new services where new housing developments had taken place, especially with the development of Metrobus.  Cllr Hockey wondered how priority could be given to bus services in these instances;
• Cllr Ball stated that competition would be difficult as First Group dominated the local market.  Coordination was needed for services that crossed local authority boundaries.  He said unfortunately some services were being lost;
• Cllr Allinson was concerned about the lack of a ‘safety valve’ with bus services and felt that it could be an opportunity to seek a solution, as buses were currently frequently running late;
• Cllr Pearce stated that although there was an increase in passenger numbers and that this was good news, he wondered whether there was a natural ceiling that numbers would reach and stall or fall;
• Cllr Weston asked whether a full breakdown of subsidised services could be provided;
• In respect of the Key Route Network (KRN) Cllr Weston asked what coordination was happening when the KRN crossed the West of England border;
• Cllr Richardson queried the diagram showing the Key Route Networks as a proposed new link road in the Whitchurch area was not shown.  Peter Mann explained that this was because there was no route there currently but a re-designation would occur in due course.
• Cllr Weston also asked about the comment in paragraph 11 of the report  that the Authority had the duty to “develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport [facilities and services] to, from and within their area, and to carry out their functions so as to implement those policies” but that no resources were allocated to this.  He asked how this duty would be coordinated with no allocated resources;
• Cllr Davies asked for details on the level of feedback/engagement with cyclists in the development of the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP);
• Cllr Davies also stated in respect of Metrowest that the longest stretch of the Portishead line was in his ward but that he had no involvement as local ward member.  He wondered whether there would be further delays in the implementation of the line;
• In terms of air quality/pollution targets, there was a planned expansion of Bristol Airport but only the buildings would be included in the carbon emissions targets.  The Chair explained that the aircraft were excluded from potential carbon reduction targets.  Cllr Morris stated that the airport would be important for inward investment post-Brexit;
• Cllr Hockey asked about whether the Portishead Line could be funded as a different type of project as there was an act of Parliament designating it as a light rail route.  It came under the Metrowest project rather than as part of the transport strategy;
• Cllr Weston asked to see a detailed breakdown of the various Metrowest phases, how the Committee could feed in comments to the Bristol Area Feasibility Study and accessibility of local train stations;
• The Chair asked for a report to be circulated on the ITA powers.

Peter Mann, Bristol City Council, who was in attendance at the meeting confirmed that franchising and enhanced partnerships were tools available to the Combined Authority for management of the local bus services.  He explained that Enhanced Partnerships did not bring full control of services into the Authority’s control and franchising brought financial responsibility.  No authority had yet signed up to an Enhanced Partnership model but the DfT had thought that the West of England area might lend itself to this type of model.  A report would be brought to this Committee in due course, but not likely to be before May 2019.

Agreed:

That the comments raised on this item be summarised as part of the Committee’s statement to the West of England Combined Authority’s Committee and Joint Committee meetings to be held on 30 November 2018.