SWWITCH JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING
Llanelli Town Hall, Llanelli, Carmarthenshire
Friday, 6 December 2013 – 1.30 pm
AGENDA
Page No.
1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies.
2 To Approve the Minutes of the Meetings held on 6 September and 1 - 10 8 November 2013 and Matters Arising.
3 Presentation - SWWITCH Rail Strategy.
4 City Regions and the Future Role of SWWITCH. 11 - 13
5 Bus Services Funding Review and Regional Network Strategy. 14 - 84
6 SWWITCH Walking and Cycling Group. 85 - 98
7 SWWITCH Programme Management. 99 - 101
8 Consultations. 102 - 133
9 Partner Updates. 134 - 139
10 Forward Meeting Dates. 140
11 FOR INFORMATION ONLY: - a SWWITCH Newsletter. 141 - 144 b SWWITCH Annual Progress Report. 145 - 168
12 Any Other Business: - a Date, Time and Venue for Next Meeting.
Agenda Item 2
Minutes of the Meeting of the SWWITCH Joint Committee - Friday 6 September 2013
PRESENT: Councillor Colin Evans (Chair) (Carmarthenshire County Council) presided
Voting Councillors: Robert Lewis - Pembrokeshire County Council Sandra Miller - Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Paul Lloyd (Pro - City and County of Swansea tem)
Non-voting Councillors: David Williams - Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Ted Latham - Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Officers: Richard Workman - Carmarthenshire County Council Steve Pilliner - Carmarthenshire County Council Simon Charles - Carmarthenshire County Council John Flower - Neath Port Talbot County Council Brian Biscoe - Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Chris Vinestock - City and County of Swansea Ian Westley - Pembrokeshire County Council Ceri Rees - Pembrokeshire County Council Sue Miles - SWWITCH Co-ordinator Marcus Judd - SWWITCH Jeremy Parkhouse - City and County of Swansea
Partners: Margaret Everson - Bus Users UK Justin Davies - First Cymru Buses Ltd John Pockett - CPT and First Great Western Michael Vaughan - Arriva Trains Wales Richard Crawshaw - SWWEF Betsan Caldwell - CTA Cymru
Also present: Hatti Woakes (observer) - North Pembrokeshire Transport Forum
1. WELCOME
The Chair welcomed all attendees to Neath Civic Centre and thanked those SWWITCH Members who had attended the site visit to view the newly opened Harbour Way at Port Talbot.
2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor June Burtonshaw (City and County of Swansea), Councillor Paul Meara (City and County of Swansea), Phil Roberts (City and County of Swansea), Ben George (City and County of
Page 1 Swansea), David Beer (Passenger Focus), Tim Peppin (WLGA) and Jane Lorimer (Sustrans).
3. MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting held on 7 June 2013 be accepted as a correct record.
4. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Item 5 - Compact and Collaboration The Briefing Note prepared for the SWWITCH Council Leaders on Key Transport Issues prior to their meeting with the Minister on 24 June 2013, was provided at Appendix A to the Matters Arising Report. Item 9 - Consultations Joint Committee delegated responsibility to the SWWITCH Management Group to prepare and submit responses to the Regional Urban and Freight Market Studies by 26 July 2013. The two responses submitted were attached at Appendices B and C of the Matters Arising Report.
5. CITY REGIONS UPDATE
John Flower provided a detailed and informative update presentation on City Regions. Areas covered included: • Engagement with the Private Sector. • Productivity/Employment within the Region. • The aims of the City Region. • Feedback from the launch of the City Region. • Timetable for European Funding. • The current position and ability of SWWITCH and future possibilities.
He also made reference to and circulated the leaflet produced in relation to the Swansea Bay City Region which outlined the background, what had happened to date and the next steps for the Swansea Bay City Region.
RESOLVED that: (1) the progress to date be noted; (2) a further update be circulated to SWWITCH Members following the City Regions Task and Finish Group Meeting on 19 September 2013.
6. BUS SERVICES FUNDING REVIEW AND REGIONAL NETWORK STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
Steve Pilliner provided an update report on progress to date with regards to Bus Services Funding Review and the Regional Network Strategy Development. SWWITCH had received the second tranche of bus funding of £959,378 from the Welsh Government in July which was equivalent to 18.75% of the total annual funding and enabled SWWITCH to meet commitments to bus operators to make second quarter payments by the middle of August. All operators had claimed quarter one payments and the majority had claimed quarter two payments. While quarter one payments were based on estimated
Page 2 mileage, for quarter two, work within SWWITCH on extensive mapping and measuring of routes had been completed and so payments now reflected the actual mileage with reconciliation up or down for under/overpayments made for quarter one. Community transport organisations had been much slower to claim, some had yet to claim quarter one funding and very few had claimed quarter two. From quarter two onwards, the concessionary fare payments were also going to be managed centrally and the SWWITCH Passenger Transport Manager’s Group were currently finalising arrangements for this change.
Details were also provided regarding a new full time, fixed term post in SWWITCH for a Regional Transport Service Grant Officer and the job description was provided at Appendix A to the report.
It was confirmed that the Regional Network Strategy had to be submitted to the Welsh Minister by 17 January 2014. It was explained that the deadline for responses to the Draft Regional Network Strategy which had been circulated to more than fifty organisations was Friday 13 September 2013. The timescale for the completion of the Draft Regional Network Strategy which was recognised as very challenging difficult and allowed little time for extensive changes within the context of securing agreement from all four Councils involved in SWWITCH.
The Welsh Government had established a sub-group to look at a range of outcomes with regard to the Regional Transport Service Grant which could be applied by consortia. The sub-group provided 21 Draft Outcomes for consortia consideration. These were rejected and alternative suggestions were proposed which mostly focused around fewer outcomes and also clarified the need for consortia to wait for the Regional Network Strategy Consultation to complete. It was added that SWWITCH Management Group was clear that consortia should have a range of optional outcomes that were applicable to the specific regional and local market in South West Wales. SWWITCH Management Group also supported incentivising operators to achieve quality outcomes rather than using penalties for non-compliance. The response from SWWITCH to the Welsh Government and quality outcomes was shown at Appendix D to the report. The next step would be to examine responses to the Regional Network Strategy before final proposals could be developed and approved.
Partner organisations expressed concern in relation to future funding of the industry and stated that stability was required in order to plan ahead with confidence. It was suggested that a year’s grace on the current funding would be a good proposal going forward in the longer term. It was proposed that a Special Joint Committee be scheduled for Friday 8 November 2013 in order to discuss the Regional Network Strategy Final Draft.
RESOLVED that a Special Joint Committee Meeting be scheduled for Friday 8 November 2013 at 1.00 p.m. at Neath Civic Centre, Neath.
7. SWWITCH RAIL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
Brian Biscoe provided a progress report on the development of a new Rail Strategy. It was explained that an income stream through the renting of retail units at Swansea Bus Station had arisen. The first receipts for SWWITCH
Page 3 totalled approximately £60,000 and an Officer Working Group put a proposal to the SWWITCH Management Group that the funding be utilised to commission a Rail Strategy for South West Wales. AECOM were appointed in early July to develop the strategy, working with SWWITCH and engaging with a wide range of stakeholders. The completion date for the Rail Strategy is the end of September 2013.
Feedback was also provided from the Stakeholder Workshop held on 1 August 2013 in Carmarthen and the notes of the discussions were provided at Appendix B to the report. SWWITCH provided feedback to AECOM in August 2013 and a further progress meeting was scheduled for 19 September 2013 at which stage a final draft report should be ready for discussion.
Partner organisations noted the aspirations outlined in the report but questioned the timetable outlined due to the electrification timetable being unknown.
RESOLVED that:
(1) the development of a SWWITCH Rail Strategy be approved; (2) the progress to date in terms of engagement and progress be noted; (3) a final draft Rail Strategy be reported to the next Joint Committee meeting for approval.
8. SWWITCH PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT
Chris Vinestock provided an update report on the Regional Transport Consortium Grant spend during the first four months of the Financial Year. The report also provided a proposal for an approach to a three year programme.
SWWITCH expenditure up to the end of July 2013 was provided which represented good progress against the profiled spend. However, it was added that with the exception of road safety revenue spend, it was a small proportion of the overall allocation. This meant that there was significant projected spend during the last six months of the year when weather disruption was likely to be at its worst.
It was outlined that the SWWITCH Programme Management Group were scrutinising the progress of projects in order to ensure that SWWITCH spends all the available funding in any year on improving access and transport in the region. Details of consortia spending in Wales for the first quarter of the Financial Year were provided.
Key tasks for the Programme Management Group arising from the July All Wales Programme Management Group Meeting included providing three to four case studies of projects delivered which demonstrate how they have contributed to the Welsh Government priorities on the economy and reducing deprivation. The case studies chosen by SWWITCH are: • Access to Kenfig Industrial Estate. • Swansea Bus Station. • Fishguard and Goodwick Station. • Cross Hands Economic Link Road Phase 1
Page 4 Consortia were also being asked to identify projects with potential land and compensation costs. The Welsh Government are concerned about the impact such schemes have on ongoing funding streams and was considering passing the risk for such costs to consortia. Furthermore, consortia were asked to ensure their Programme Management Groups carry out peer group reviews of projects as they progress through the development stages to consider compensation issues.
The report also provided details of the proposed Three Year Programme Development. SWWITCH Management Group proposed that SWWITCH adopted the City Regions Three Year Programme approach. This would mean that the basis for projects to be delivered in the next two years of funding will be:
• Creating access to new job locations thus encouraging inward investment. • Focus on providing access to jobs. • Strategic interchanges to promote multi-modal commuting on bus journeys. • Regional strategic cycling infrastructure.
RESOLVED that:
(1) progress to date on the 2013/14 RTCG delivery be noted; (2) the four projects proposed as SWWITCH “case studies” be approved; (3) the principle of developing RTCG programmes for the next two years based on “City Regions” approach be approved.
9. NHS RECONFIGURATION AND ACCESS AND TRANSPORT ISSUES
Sue Miles reported on the proposed NHS Reconfiguration and Access to Transport Issues. It was explained that the Welsh Government wanted to start working with Health Boards, the Ambulance Trust and Regional Transport Consortia to try and prepare for and address the potential access gaps which will result from changes to clinical service delivery in Wales. SWWITCH would have an interest in the South Wales and Hywel Dda Working Groups and the Welsh Government were seeking senior level nominations from consortia to the relevant Working Groups. The nominated SWWITCH representatives were Dave Griffiths (Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council) - South Wales Programme Group, Steve Pilliner (Carmarthenshire County Council) - Hywel Dda Group.
Feedback was provided from the first meeting of the South Wales Programme Group which was held on 15 August 2013. Concern was also expressed that this would be an ongoing partnership approach with the Health Boards accepting there were changes they could make which would improve access. It was seen as critical that the problems with access were not transferred to SWWITCH without the appropriate funding and support mechanisms.
Joint Committee commented on the information contained in the report and recognised the importance of the proposals. The importance of the financial considerations were recognised and the need for the matter to be properly discussed and organised.
Page 5 RESOLVED that:
(1) the setting up of Health and Transport Groups to address access issues post-NHS reconfiguration be noted; (2) the Officer nominations to represent SWWITCH be approved; (3) the concerns about expectations that consortia can address all access issues relating to NHS reconfiguration be noted.
10. SWWITCH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Ceri Rees provided a report which set out the requirements and timescales proposed for the SWWITCH Annual Progress Report and proposed delegated responsibility for the final submission to the SWWITCH Management Group.
It was outlined that the main focus of the guidance was to get a concise and informative representation of progress made by each consortium in terms of project delivery and policy development. The Annual Progress Report is intended to be of use to the Welsh Government and other key stakeholders, but also of interest to residents, visitors and businesses in the region. The guidance provided by Welsh Government was provided at Appendix A of the report.
It was proposed that the timetable set out at Appendix B of the report be adopted for the 2012/13 Annual Progress Report Development, that the main Annual Progress Report and not the extensive appendices be translated by the deadline of 18 October 2013, that the main document be a similar size to previous years and the SWWITCH Management Group be given delegated responsibility to approve the final submission of the final document, which will be forwarded to Joint Committee for information.
RESOLVED that:
(1) the requirements of and timescales for the 2012/13 Annual Progress Report submission be noted; (2) Joint Committee delegates responsibility to approve the Annual Progress Report submission to SWWITCH Management Group; (3) a copy of the final document be circulated to Joint Committee.
11. CONSULTATIONS
Simon Charles reported on current consultations involving SWWITCH. This included: • Wales and Borders Franchise Inquiry. The context for the Inquiry was explained in the report and a draft response was provided for consideration.
RESOLVED that the response to the Enterprise and Business Committees Inquiry into the Rail Franchise be approved.
Page 6 12. PARTNER UPDATES
Joint Committee received updates from the following partner organisations:
• Arriva Trains Wales. • Community Transport Association. • Bus Users UK. • Welsh Local Government Association. • First Great Western. • Passenger Focus. • First Cymru Buses.
The Chair, on behalf of SWWITCH, congratulated both Margaret Everson, Bus Users UK for recently receiving an MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List for services to bus users and transport in Wales and Hatti Woakes, North Pembrokeshire Transport Forum on receiving a British Empire Medal for services to transport.
13. SWWITCH NEWSLETTER
The SWWITCH Newsletter for September 2013 was provided for information.
14. SWWITCH CHAIR ACTIVITIES
The SWWITCH Chair activities were reported for information.
15. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ON ROAD AND RAIL PRIORITIES
The Ministerial Statements on Road and Rail Priorities were provided for information.
16. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Date, Time and Venue for Next Meeting
RESOLVED that:
(1) a Special Meeting be scheduled for 1.00 p.m. on Friday 8 November 2013 at Neath Civic Centre; (2) the next scheduled Joint Committee be scheduled for 1.00 p.m. on Friday 6 December 2013 at Carmarthen.
The meeting ended at 3.00 p.m.
CHAIR
Page 7
Minutes of the Meeting of the SWWITCH Joint Committee - Friday 8 November 2013
PRESENT: Councillor Colin Evans (Chair) (Carmarthenshire County Council) presided
Voting Councillors:
Robert Lewis - Pembrokeshire County Council Sandra Miller - Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Paul Lloyd (pro tem) - City and County of Swansea
Non Voting Councillors:
David Williams - Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Paul Meara - City and County of Swansea
Partners:
Justin Davies - First Cymru Buses Ltd. John Pockett - CPT and First Great Western Margaret Everson - Bus Users UK Betsan Caldwell - CTA
Officers:
John Flower - Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council David Griffiths - Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Peter Jackson - Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Steve Pilliner - Carmarthenshire County Council Ian Westley - Pembrokeshire County Council Hubert Mathias - Pembrokeshire County Council Chris Vinestock - City and County of Swansea Barrie Gilbert - City and County of Swansea Sue Miles - SWWITCH Co-ordinator Jeremy Parkhouse - City and County of Swansea
ALSO PRESENT:
Stephen Payne - Aecom John Godfrey - TAS Hatti Woakes - Observer - North Pembrokeshire Transport Forum
Page 8 Minutes of the Meeting of the SWWITCH Joint Committee (08.11.2013) Cont’d
1. WELCOME
The Chair welcomed all attendees to Port Talbot Civic Centre to this Special SWWITCH Joint Committee meeting and commenced proceedings.
2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor June Burtonshaw (City and County of Swansea), Councillor Ted Latham (Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council), Mike Vaughan (Arriva Trains Wales), Richard Workman (Carmarthenshire County Council) and Lindsey Curtis (Sustrans).
3. THE CONTEXT FOR THE REGIONAL NETWORK STRATEGY
It was reported that the letter which informed consortia of the Regional Transport Services Grant (RTSG) funding was sent in early April 2013 and included very limited guidance as to what the Regional Network Strategy (RNS) should include. Details were provided at Appendix A of the report and the key focus was on the timescales involved which were set out as follows:
• By 26 July 2013 - consortia had to issue a draft RNS for formal consultation.
• By Friday 27 December 2013 - consortia must obtain the formal agreement of the Joint Committees for the RNS.
• By 17 January 2014 - the RNS must be submitted to the Minister for approval.
The challenging timescale and the focus of officers across the region on ensuring that the new funding system was properly introduced meant that the time available to develop a detailed strategy was very limited. In order to achieve the timescales and to provide extra capacity, SWWITCH appointed consultants to work with the four councils to develop the RNS.
Page 9 Minutes of the Meeting of the SWWITCH Joint Committee (08.11.2013) Cont’d
4. PRESENTATION - AECOM/TAS ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND OUTPUTS FROM THE SWWITCH REGIONAL NETWORK STRATEGY
Stephen Payne - Aecom and John Godfrey- TAS provided a detailed presentation and fielded questions on the development and outputs from the SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy. Details included in the presentation were as follows:
• Why we are undertaking RNS? • Baseline situation. • Approach to strategy. • Option identification. • Formal consultation. • Option appraisal. • Final strategy.
Detailed discussions followed in relation to the content of the presentation and questions were responded to accordingly.
RESOLVED that:
(1) the SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy be endorsed;
(2) the outcome of the local councils’ consideration of the strategy is reported to SWWITCH Joint Committee on 6 December 2013 in order to allow for a final decision.
The meeting ended at 3.15 p.m.
CHAIR
S: Special SWWITCH Joint Committee - 8 November 2013 (JEP/EJF) 14 November 2013
Page 10 Agenda Item 4
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
City Regions and the future of SWWITCH
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Joint Committee will be aware that the Swansea Bay City Region was launched by Edwina Hart the Minister for Economy, Science and Transport on 18th July this year. The City Region is co-terminus with SWWITCH and the Economic Regeneration Strategy, developed and signed up to by each of the four Councils, provides the foundation for the aspirations and forward plan of the City Region.
1.2 Members will also be aware that the Minister has made public her concerns about the transport consortia and her ambition to “fold consortia into the City Regions”, where they exist.
1.3 This paper sets out changes since the last Joint Committee and examines some SWWITCH options for discussion.
2.0 CITY REGIONS
2.1 Since the last Joint Committee there have been two major events associated with the Swansea Bay City Region as follows:
• Friday 18th October – Conference on highlighting the growth potential of the City Region. This conference attracted a wide range of private sector partners to hear presentations from major organisations, political leaders and academia. It provided good opportunities for networking and also for showcasing what was already happening in the region • Tuesday 3rd December – Workshop on the development and prioritisation of projects and actions for the Swansea Bay City Region. This was open to a wide range of business and third sector organisations to come and meet with senior Local Council officers and help to determine priorities and identify gaps through key workshop sessions, focused on the five key areas to sit under and report to the City Regions Board as follows: o Growing business o Improving Skills o Creating jobs o Knowledge Economy o Competitive Infrastructure
2.2 The Minister has also announced the membership of the Board as follows:
• Chair: leader of Swansea Council David Phillips • Vice-chair: Executive board member of Carmarthenshire County Council Meryl Gravell: • Vice-chair: Chairman of JCP Solicitors Steve Penny: • Member: Chair of Swansea Improvement District Juliet Luporini:
Page 11
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
• Member: Director with law firm Morgan La Roche Rosemary Morgan: • Member: Paul Greenwood director of Teddington Engineered Solutions • Member: Managing director of Ledwood Mechanical Engineering Nick Revell: • Member: Managing director of Andrew Scott Mark Bowen: • Member: Co-founder of Pure Wafer Keith Baker; • Member: Owner of St Brides Hotel and regional tourism partnership Andrew Evans: • Member: Vice chancellor of Swansea University Professor Richard Davies: • Member: Principal Coleg Sir Gar Barry Liles: • Member: Regional secretary for UNITE Wales Andy Richards
2.3 Work is ongoing on the Governance issues and clearly there will be concerns to be resolved about democratic accountability, scrutiny and reporting lines. The City Region is currently supported only by a part time secretariat from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council.
3.0 FUTURE OF SWWITCH
3.1 The Minister has been less than complementary about the transport consortia and is reviewing their role. The consortia are Local Council bodies so the Minister cannot disband consortia, however, she could remove the revenue support which the Welsh Government provides annually. This would leave Local Councils, already struggling to maintain their own staff, with little alternative but to make the consortium staff redundant.
3.2 The Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) took a report on the future of the consortia to their co-ordinating committee on 25th October 2013. As a result of broadly supportive discussions with Council Leaders at that meeting the WLGA has now organised a meeting with the Minister and two Council Leaders from each region. This meeting will take place on 20th January 2014 and Cllrs Jamie Adams and Ali Thomas will represent the SWWITCH region.
3.3 The WLGA are intending to prepare a briefing note for Leaders prior to the meeting and Joint Committee may consider it appropriate for SWWITCH to prepare a separate briefing note for the two SWWITCH Leaders who will attend.
3.4 In terms of the future role of SWWITCH there are a number of potential options that Members may wish to consider:
• Retain SWWITCH as present as a separate body • Continue to work together as a Joint Committee and as Officers, but without the specific SWWITCH Branding • Seek to establish formal reporting links to the new City Regions Board • Become a sub group of the City Regions, reporting into the Competitive Infrastructure Group
Page 12
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
• Disband SWWITCH as a Joint Committee and a dedicated core team and allow Council Officers to continue to collaborate on transport under the City Regions banner
There will be other variations within each of these and the key determinant will be funding and where funding bids and allocations are made in the future.
3.5 Joint Committee views on the above options and other variants are sought.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 It is RECOMMENDED that:
I. Joint Committee notes and supports the continuing development of the Swansea Bay City Region II. A briefing note be prepared for the Leaders attending the Ministerial meeting on 20th January 2014 III. A further report on the future options for SWWITCH is discussed at the next Committee meeting by which time there should be more clarity on the City Regions governance structure
Page 13 Agenda Item 5
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
Bus Service Funding Review and the Regional Network Strategy
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Joint Committee will be aware from previous reports and discussions that SWWITCH has been managing the new Regional Transport Services Grant (RTSG) funding from April 1st 2013. This funding replaced the former Local Transport Services Grant (paid to each council) which supplements Councils’ own budgetary support for local bus services and the former Bus Services Operators Grant which supported mileage based payments to bus and community transport operators.
1.2 Part of the requirements of the RTSG funding is that each consortium prepares a Regional Network Strategy (RNS) and the SWWITCH final draft RNS was the subject of an extra Joint Committee meeting held on 8th November 2013. Following a presentation and lively questions and answer session, Joint Committee endorsed the final draft RNS to the constituent Councils.
1.3 This report provides an update on the 2013/14 RTSG distribution and the progress of the final draft RNS through each Council’s political process. It also provides information on changes to the All Wales Concessionary Fare scheme reimbursement to bus operators from April 2014 onwards.
2.0 2013/14 RTSG ALLOCATION
2.1 SWWITCH received the third tranche of RTSG from the Welsh Government in late October. This payment of £959,378, was equivalent to 18.75% of the total annual SWWITCH allocation. It has enabled SWWITCH to meet commitments to bus operators to make third quarter payments by the middle of November.
2.2 All payments are now based on actual mileage (including reductions for lost mileage where applicable) and all except one operator have submitted claims and invoices for quarter three funding. Where these were submitted on time payment was made on or before the 15th November, some operators who were slower to submit claims or invoices were paid during the last two weeks of November.
2.3 Community Transport Organisations have been slower to claim funding. Some have yet to claim funding due from quarter two (July – September 2013) and only half of operators have claimed the quarter three funding to date. Whilst this is understandable in light of the lean financial and administrative resources that most CT organisations have, it does make forward budget planning more difficult for SWWITCH and absorbs more officer time in reminding and chasing organisations.
2.4 As reported to last Joint Committee concessionary fare reimbursement claims are now being filtered through SWWITCH, with each Council continuing to receive data from and pay bus operators for the fares lost as a result of the free concessionary scheme and then SWWITCH drawing together the data from each Council to submit one regional claim for reimbursement to the Welsh Government.
Page 14
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
2.5 A full time (fixed term) Officer for Regional Transport support Grant Officer has now been appointed and this will help to ensure that as well as keeping records, payments and monitoring up to date, there is more regular liaison with operators and some capacity to support forward planning for future years.
3.0 REGIONAL NETWORK STRATEGY
3.1 The special Joint Committee on 8th November endorsed the final draft strategy and since then the strategy has been considered by all four councils. At the time of writing this paper both Carmarthenshire County Council and the City and County of Swansea have approved the Regional Network Strategy.
3.2 Pembrokeshire County Council and Neath Port Talbot County Council will both consider the strategy in the week beginning 2nd December 2013 and verbal confirmation on the decisions reached will be given at Joint Committee.
3.3 Assuming all four Councils have approved the strategy by 6th December, Joint Committee can adopt the SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy and approve its submission to the Welsh Government by the deadline of 17th January 2014. A copy of the Regional Network Strategy is attached as Appendix A to this paper
4.0 ALL WALES CONCESSIONARY FARE SCHEME
4.1 Joint Committee will be aware that the Welsh Government introduced the All Wales Concessionary Fare Scheme in April 2002. The scheme provides a free concessionary bus pass to all residents in Wales over the age of 60 and also to those in receipt of certain benefits and to those who are unable to drive or hold a license due to specific medical conditions. Pass holders can travel on registered bus services anywhere in Wales without charge and with no time restrictions. There is no limit to the number of journeys that can be made.
4.2 Bus operators receive reimbursement for the fares forgone through a system established in partnership between the Welsh Government, Local Councils and Bus Operators. Local councils make a contribution towards the reimbursement costs but the majority is paid directly by the Welsh Government.
4.3 The All Wales Scheme has been very successful but the cost to the public purse has increased significantly since 2002 and in the current year predicted costs are approximately £73m (of which approximately £10.2m is funded by Councils). The Welsh Government working with Councils and bus operators have made efforts in the last three years to try and manage the costs of the scheme better by introducing an annual cap. Effectively this has meant that the reimbursement rate to operators has been reduced (usually in last half or quarter of the year) to ensure the maximum budget is not exceeded. The three year agreement between all parties ends on 31st March 2014 and the Welsh Government has established a series of meetings with consortia and bus operators in the last two months to get a new agreement in place by April 2014.
Page 15
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
4.4 It has been clear from these meetings that there is likely to be a significant reduction in the reimbursement paid to bus operators and this is based both on a Consultant’s review (which suggested the Welsh Scheme was more generous than that in England and Scotland) and also on budgetary pressures next financial year. The bus operators (working collectively through the Confederation of Passenger Transport) has employed their own consultants to review the WG calculations and CPT disputes the claim that the scheme has been “over generous”.
4.5 Although the scheme is an All Wales scheme, it is administered by Local Councils (as Travel concession authorities) and it is the Local Councils (working together as SWWITCH) who are obliged to give four months’ notice of changes to the scheme. Thus on 1st December the Councils issued revised scheme details. These do not in any way change the entitlement of users, but they do set a revised modifying factor for reimbursement to operators, at a lower rate of 56.3% (in comparison with the current 73.6%).
4.6 In practice this means that there will be a reduction of approximately £17m in the Concessionary Fares reimbursement across Wales from next financial year. This will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the bus network of Wales. With concessionary pass holders making up almost half of all bus users (more in some parts of SWWITCH), it is obvious that a significant reduction in reimbursement related to their travel means many commercial routes will become unviable and many tendered routes will need increased levels of subsidy to be maintained.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 It is RECOMMENDED that:
I. Joint Committee notes ongoing progress in the management of the RTSG funding II. Joint Committee adopts the SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy and it is submitted to the Welsh Government by the deadline of 17th January 2014 III. Joint Committee notes the reduction in the overall concessionary fare reimbursement rate and the potential impact on the bus network in SWWITCH IV. A further report is brought back to next Joint Committee
Page 16 Transportation SWWITCH 10/10/2013
SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy
Page 17
Prepared by: ...... Checked by: ...... John Godfrey Stephen Payne Principal Consultant – TAS Partnership Senior Consultant - AECOM
Approved by: ...... Craig Bell Regional Director - AECOM
Rev No Comments Checked by Approved Date by
1 Consultation Draft SP GP 06/08/2013 2 Final Strategy Draft SP CB 11/10/2013 3 Revised Version taking on client comments SP CB 25/10/2013 4 Revised Version taking on additional client comments SP CB 04/11/2013
Churchill House, Churchill Way, Cardiff, CF10 2HH Telephone: 029 2035 3400 Website: http://www.aecom.com
Job No 60303805 Reference Date Created 10/10/2013
This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited. f:\projects\transport planning - south west wales regional engineering framework\03 project work\2013_06 mini bid for regional network strategy\07 reports\swwitch rns final strategy - v7 final.doc
Page 18
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...... 2 2 Baseline ...... 7 3 Development of Options ...... 18 4 Identified Formal Consultation Options ...... 23 5 Formal Consultation Responses ...... 30 6 Financial Impacts ...... 37 7 Accessibility Impacts ...... 40 8 Option Appraisal and Justification of a Preferred Option ...... 50 9 The Final Strategy ...... 60 10 Conclusions ...... 65
Page 19
1 Introduction
Page 20
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 2
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
This Regional Network Strategy (RNS) has been produced by the South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium (SWWITCH), the Regional Transport Consortium (RTC) for South West Wales covering the four local authorities of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, Swansea and Neath Port Talbot. This document follows the Welsh Government’s decision, in January 2013, to replace the previous funding arrangements; the Bus Services Operators’ Grant (BSOG), Local Transport Services Grant (LTSG) and Community Transport Concessionary Fares Initiative (CTCFI), with a single funding scheme known as the Regional Transport Services Grant (RTSG). The Welsh Government intends that these new bus funding arrangements will ‘help tackle deprivation and support independent living across Wales by rewarding private companies that deliver measurable targets that passengers most wish to see rather than compensating bus operators on the basis of fuel consumption’1. Alongside this change in funding arrangements, the Welsh Government have passed responsibility for the administration of the RTSG, and decisions regarding how the funds are spent, to the four Regional Transport Consortia who are also required to produce a Regional Network Strategy (RNS) considering bus, community transport and taxi provision to support their decisions from 2014. This document outlines the process that has been undertaken to consider the baseline situation and explore different options that could be pursued by SWWITCH regarding how the region’s RTSG allocation is distributed and the implications that this could have focusing on the bus network in the SWWITCH region on an area by area basis. This report also indicates the stakeholder and formal consultation process that has been utilised to help shape options for consideration as well as views on these options to help identify the final strategy approach that SWWITCH will take forward in the future.
1.2 Background
Welsh Government support for buses, taxis and community transport is changing. In the past, each of the local councils in Wales received funds in the form of Local Transport Services Grant (LTSG) from the Welsh Government. They then used this money to support bus routes and community transport in their areas, alongside other transport funding from their general resources. In addition to the funding from local councils, bus companies, and some Community Transport (CT) organisations running public bus services, were able to claim Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG). The amount of money paid out under BSOG depended on the amount of fuel used. BSOG was paid by the Department for Transport (central government) directly to bus operators. Since April 2013 Welsh Government has introduced a new way of supporting bus and CT operators. Instead of receiving BSOG from central government and support for non-commercial services from local authorities, there is a new Regional Transport Services Grant (RTSG). Although BSOG funding to operators in England and Scotland has also been reduced recently, some alternative sources of funding have been made available to these areas, such as Green Bus Funds (supporting the early introduction of hybrid and alternative fuel buses) or the Better Bus Areas fund. No such alternatives have been provided in Wales. Welsh operators also face reductions in their income from the All-Wales Concessionary Fares Scheme, for which the rate of reimbursement is currently under review by the Welsh Government, and less spending power among their customers – either individuals or local authorities. Local government budgets are being reduced, meaning some supported services can no longer be afforded, and there are no funds to meet any new demands.
1 http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/transport/2013/130117new-bus-funding-scheme/?lang=en
Page 21
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 3
RTSG is paid to bus operators by SWWITCH in two ways:
· First, RTSG is used to support non-commercial (tendered) services. In some areas bus routes are fully commercial – the fares from passengers are enough to pay for the service. In other areas, particularly rural areas, the income from the fares is not enough to pay for the bus service. In the past in these areas, it was the responsibility of the local council to decide how much it wanted to spend to support services and to decide which services it should support. In the future, SWWITCH will share this responsibility and decide which services it wants to support, alongside the local council; and · Secondly, RTSG is used to pay for a replacement for BSOG. This replacement, called Live Kilometres Support Grant (LKSG), is only paid when the bus is being used to transport passengers (i.e. ‘live’ kilometres). This is a change from BSOG, which was paid to operators for all mileage including ‘dead’ mileage, where no passengers are transported. The financial year (April 2013 to March 2014) is a transition year between the old and new ways of working whilst SWWITCH develops its Regional Network Strategy, which will guide its decisions on what services it will support in the future, and how the distribution of RTSG within the region might change to achieve this. The other point about RTSG is that it is a fixed pot of funds. Under the old system, BSOG was guaranteed to be paid for all eligible mileage at the specified rate. Since April 2013, RTSG is limited to a fixed total decided by Welsh Government, and has reduced by about 26% from the totals for 2011/12. SWWITCH will need to make sure that all payments can be made within its budget, but it does not yet know what this budget will be from April 2014.
1.3 Development of the Strategy
SWWITCH had been engaging with the bus and community transport operators for a number of months (including workshop sessions) in respect of the changes to the bus funding mechanism and the requirement to prepare a Regional Network Strategy. However, it was recognised that more capacity was needed and so SWWITCH appointed consultants AECOM working with The TAS Partnership to: · Look at the current situation in the SWWITCH region in terms of the commercial tendered bus and community transport networks; · Get the views of as many bus operator and representative organisations as possible on a number of different options; · Draw up a draft Regional Network Strategy (RNS) taking on board the views expressed for consultation by SWWITCH; and · Consider the results of the SWWITCH consultation, undertake an appraisal of the options to recommend the best strategy. SWWITCH and its consultants initially arranged a briefing and workshop event in Carmarthen on 15th July 2013 in order to explain the development of the RNS for SWWITCH to interested parties. Bus and CT operators, users’ representatives and taxi licensing officers were invited to this meeting, which aimed to find out the initial views of the bus and taxi industries and CT sector. About 20 people attended the workshop event to listen and give their views. Consultants then also met on a one-to-one basis with each of the four local authorities, several major bus operators in the SWWITCH area, the Community Transport Association, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and bus users’ representatives. Alongside these activities the consultants collected data, analysed the current bus network and CT provision, and modelled the expected effects of various funding options. This work was used to inform the development of a draft strategy, which on the 26th July was put out for formal consultation. The deadline for
Page 22
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 4
responses was the 13th of September and these responses have been reviewed and incorporated into this final strategy.
1.4 Objectives
SWWITCH aims to achieve the following high level objectives through the development of the RNS as defined at the scoping stage of the strategy: · To support access to employment, health, education, retail and leisure - to minimise deprivation and isolation; · To maximise the value of investment, taking into account variations in topography, population dispersal and journey patterns; · To achieve a balance of services across the region; · To maximise market growth (within the confines of the resources available and the balance of services across the region); · To frame an options appraisal template that enables prioritisation of investment to meet the key objectives set out above; and · To include key quality outcomes to meet the requirements of the Regional Transport Services Grant with effect from 1st April 2014. These objectives have been derived from the wider SWWITCH Regional Transport Plan objectives and highlight the sometimes competing needs which the bus network seeks to deliver across the region. SWWITCH will have to seek to achieve these objectives within the budgetary limits set by the Welsh Government. The strategy must therefore be pragmatic and aim to enable the best public transport network possible with the resources available, while trying to minimise the damage resulting from funding cuts elsewhere.
1.5 Report Structure
This report is structured in the following sections: · Section 2 provides an overview of the baseline conditions in the SWWITCH region in relation to the bus industry and the levels of bus and community transport service provision currently present in the SWWITCH area; · Section 3 outlines the process that has been adopted to identify and develop suitable options for consideration and the involvement that key stakeholders have had in this process; · Section 4 outlines the three alternative financing options that were put forward for consideration as part of the formal consultation on the draft Regional Network Strategy; · Section 5 summarises the views expressed as part of the formal consultation process; · Section 6 outlines the key financial impacts of the strategy options being considered; · Section 7 indicates the likely strategic accessibility impacts of each of the strategy options; · Section 8 provides an overall appraisal of each of the three options and provides a justification for the selection of a preferred option; · Section 9 outlines the content of the SWWITCH final strategy;
Page 23
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 5
· Section 10 discusses the further considerations which fall outside of the scope of this strategy but none the less have the potential to significantly influence bus and community transport provision over the coming years; and · Section 11 provides concluding remarks on the strategy outcomes and the process that has shaped its development.
Page 24
2 Baseline
Page 25
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 7
2 Baseline
2.1 Introduction
In order to better understand how changes to the funding of bus services might influence the bus network in the SWWITCH region, it is first necessary to understand the historic and current levels and patterns of service provision in the area. This section first provides an overview of the historic trends in bus patronage and operating revenue in Wales before secondly, considering the current levels of service provision in the SWWITCH area including summary mapping of levels of service provision. This information will then be used in subsequent sections as the baseline against which to test the impact of different potential funding options on the levels and patterns of service provision.
2.2 Historic Trends
To better understand current levels of service provision and funding it is first necessary to understand the historic trends that have led to the present situation. Figure 2.1 shows the change in bus patronage for Wales, Scotland and England (excluding London) since deregulation of local bus services in 1986 and shows the downward trend that existed throughout much of the 1980’s and 90s in all three countries. However, since the turn of the century, Wales has tended to perform better than Scotland or England, with patronage levels in Wales stabilising over the last decade at around 75% to 80% of the level that existed at the time of deregulation. Figure 2.1: Indexed Change in Patronage since Deregulation (Source: DfT Statistics 2011/12)
Page 26 AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 8
This comparatively better performance in patronage levels masks the fact that the financial performance of the bus network in Wales is the lowest in Great Britain in terms of operating revenue (fares, concessionary reimbursement, Bus Services Operators’ Grant and tender/contract revenue) per kilometre. Figure 2.2 shows levels of operating revenue by area for 2010/11 and highlights that Wales is significantly below the average for Great Britain, although this is partially a reflection of the lower population density of Wales. Figure 2.2: Operating Revenue per Vehicle Kilometre (Source: DfT Statistics 2010/11)
Across Great Britain there is currently a move both at national and local levels of government to reduce expenditure on bus services as part of wider ongoing austerity measures. However, the impacts of any cuts for Wales may be exacerbated by the lower starting point in terms of revenue per kilometre. The impacts of this for the SWWITCH region will be considered as part of this strategy. Figure 2.3 provides a comparison between the level of commercial and tendered bus mileage for each area of Great Britain. This indicates that the pattern of change in commercial mileage in Wales is comparable to that in the English Metropolitan areas, rising by around 20% in the period immediately after deregulation. However, levels have since fallen back to a position comparable to that experienced prior to deregulation. In terms of tendered services supported by the public sector mileage in Wales has increased by more than 80% to 2010/11, before falling back markedly in the last year to 2011/12. Overall levels of mileage in Wales have remained more stable than in other parts of the UK and have perhaps increased slightly since deregulation. However a significant part of this increase has been delivered through public sector support in the form of tendered services. This highlights the importance of understanding the differing impacts that the Route Network Strategy could have on both commercial and tendered services and how this could play out spatially across the SWWITCH region. Alongside the above operating context, the South West Wales region is diverse geographically, demographically and economically, with public transport provision generally reflecting the varied population distribution of the area which is illustrated later in this section. However, many common transport and
Page 27 AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 9
accessibility problems exist and Local Authority and SWWITCH policy development over the last ten years has sought to improve the public transport offer and to provide a stable foundation for integrating public transport into wider policy objectives such as economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability.
Figure 2.3: Indexed Change in Mileage since Deregulation (Source: DfT Statistics 2010/11)
2.3 Current Financial Support The total spent by SWWITCH authorities in 2012/13 on bus and CT support (excluding concessionary fares reimbursement) is shown in Table 2.1. This shows that the two predominantly rural authorities of Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire provide significantly higher levels of both bus and CT subsidy than the two more urban authorities. Table 2.1: Local Authority Bus and CT Revenue Support in 2012/13 £000s Bus subsidy CT funding Authority LA LTSG LA LTSG CTCFI Carmarthenshire CC 1055 744 84 83 0 Neath Port Talbot CBC 315 426 141 98 127 Pembrokeshire CC 921 365 15 96 105 City & County of 713 569 25 64 o Swansea Total 3,004 2,104 265 341 232
Page 28 AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 10
The total of locally-funded expenditure (£3.27m) is very close to that for LTSG (£4.45m). In addition to this total of £5.95 million, operators in the region claimed some £3.7 million in BSOG last year. The total figure for Regional Transport Services Grant (RTSG) in 2013/14 is £5.11 million, split between LKSG and revenue support. The network has been modelled to assume existing levels of revenue support from Local Authorities. This total of around £7.5 million represents a reduction of around 20% in one year. SWWITCH also administers a capital funding programme (of £5.24 million in 2013/14) which includes expenditure on cycling, walking and roads schemes in addition to public transport infrastructure. Future levels of expenditure on public transport infrastructure will be determined by the allocation given to SWWITCH for the next round of the Regional Transport Plan, which are not yet known. A further vital source of revenue for bus operators is reimbursement for the carriage of older and disabled people travelling free under the All-Wales Concessionary Fares Scheme. Our modelling suggests that around 37% of bus operators’ total income is derived from concessionary reimbursement. While this is not subsidy to the operators, it is provided from public funding under the control of the Welsh Government, and the rate of reimbursement is currently under review. Any significant reduction would have a seriously adverse impact on all bus services, but especially those which carry the highest proportion of concessionary passengers – which, typically, are services already subsidised by the local authorities and are considered socially necessary. 2.4 Measuring Current Service Provision
To measure the current levels of service provision, data have been supplied by SWWITCH for June 2013 which records daily distances by service and by operator2 in kilometres. This information has been used to develop a baseline for a four week period average by day of the week. A matrix of all services has then been compiled into a ‘Bus Funding Model’ which will be used as part of the strategy development process to assess the impacts of the different funding options on services. Additional information on this model can be found in Appendix E of the supporting document. The data show that across the SWWITCH area more than 1.6 million bus kilometres are operated per four- week period; almost 70% of this is delivered by First Cymru. Each operator’s services and service levels have been tabulated to establish their four-weekly financial performance. This allows analysis of the income generated by: · On- and off-bus revenue totals; · Concessionary reimbursement; · Tender income (Local Authority / RTSG); and · Other income, e.g. Community Transport funding. This provides, for a given four-week period, total distance operated and income generated, and also the amount of LKSG payable at the current rate of 13.32p/km. From this it is possible to calculate measures of performance such as income per kilometre, and input variable influencing factors, for example applying percentage changes to overall funding rates. This tool also has the flexibility to be used in future to assess the potential impacts that wider changes in bus funding levels may have on service frequencies.
2 To distinguish between head-to-head competing commercial services, and elements of other services tendered by a local authority and provided by different operators.
Page 29 AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 11
2.5 Baseline Frequencies by Hour
Having ascertained the total mileage and income values from the available data, the baseline frequency per hour for each service has been calculated based on typical Monday-Saturday daytime provision, as shown in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2: Buses per Hour and Corresponding Headways
Baseline Corresponding headway value buses per hour 5 12 minutes 4 15 minutes 3 20 minutes 2 30 minutes 1 60 minutes 0.67 90 minutes 0.5 2 hours 0.33 3 hours, or four journeys per day 0.25 4 hours, or three journeys per day 0.1 One journey, e.g. each way schools service.
The scenario options outlined in Section 4 which set out the impact of changes to income or frequency will then influence the numbers of buses per hour.
2.6 Zone System
To determine the impacts of different options visually, a zone system has been developed. The Explore Wales Pass Bus Map from 2013 has been used to show the bus service provision in the SWWITCH region within 44 urban and outer zones. (Note that this map shows only the principal bus routes.) The size and scale of each area has been designed to reflect the differing densities of population and levels of service provision across the SWWITCH area. For information, a reference code has been assigned to each area consisting of one letter and then two digits – the first letter represents the county; the first digit is either 0 for an urban centre or 1 for an outer area, with the second digit being a sequential digit, for example, N01 for Neath, N02 for Port Talbot and S16 for the Gower Peninsula. This will allow comparisons between urban areas such as Llanelli and Swansea, and contrasts at county level between Neath Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire.
2.7 Baseline Levels of Service
Figure 2.4 shows the baseline levels of bus service provision for each identified zone based upon the analysis described above. This clearly highlights the differences between each of the four local authorities. Most of Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire have less frequent or minimal service levels outside the key towns of Carmarthen and Haverfordwest. Swansea and Neath Port Talbot, in contrast, have much higher levels of service, particularly in the urban areas of Swansea and Neath. However, even in these more
Page 30 AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 12
densely populated local authorities, there are areas with lower levels of service provision, such as the Gower Peninsula in Swansea and Dulais Valley in Neath Port Talbot. Nonetheless, the network remains quite comprehensive, and provides journey opportunities to meet most needs across the vast majority of the area’s population. Given the funding available to operators and transport authorities, the current network appears to achieve a good balance of availability, accessibility and affordability.
Page 31 AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 13
Figure 2.4: Baseline Levels of Service Provision
Page 32
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 14
2.8 Community Transport
One of the responsibilities of SWWITCH is the commissioning and funding of community transport (CT) across the region and CT is an important part of this Regional Network Strategy. As is typical with CT services in many other areas, the sector has developed organically on a local basis within districts in each of the four Local Authorities. This generally reflects the perceived levels of need, available funds, and a customer focus which often involves service users (and their representatives) as part of the management board of the delivery organisations. However, when viewed strategically at SWWITCH level, the sector can appear to be piecemeal and inconsistent. Definitions of CT can also vary from area to area, but they generally have in common a not-for-profit operational model (often delivered by voluntary sector charities) and offer services that are aimed at specific sections of the community (for example, those with mobility impairments, at risk of social exclusion or geographic isolation) rather than the general public. There are many different models of CT, such as: · Voluntary car schemes; · Demand responsive transport; · Dial-a-Ride; · S22 community bus; and · Group transport. There are different ways of delivering CT, for example: · Using paid staff; · Using volunteers; or · Sub-contracting the commercial sector. There are also different ways of funding CT, for example: · Funding by local / central / regional government via grants, service level agreements or contracts; · Funding from users; or · Funding from external charitable sources.
Analysis of CT across the SWWITCH region confirms that there are many CT schemes (over 30) of many different types (see Table 2.3 below). The impact on CT of different funding options will be considered as part of this strategy. Although not classed as CT it is also important to note the role that taxis and Private Hire Vehicles play in the overall public transport mix. These modes currently offer comprehensive coverage across the SWWITCH region, including widespread availability of wheelchair-accessible vehicles.
Page 33
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 15
2.9 Summary of Key Issues
The analysis of the current baseline situation has indicated that: · The financial performance of the bus network in Wales is the lowest in the UK in terms of operating revenue and this is likely to exacerbate the impacts of any cuts in funding. · The South West Wales region is diverse geographically, demographically and economically and the public transport network reflects this varied population distribution. · The level and distribution of bus subsidy between the two predominantly urban and two predominantly rural local authorities in the SWWITCH area is markedly different, with the rural authorities having to provide significantly higher levels of subsidy than urban. · Concessionary fares reimbursement is a critical source of funding, representing around 37% of bus operators total income and the current rate of reimbursement is under review by the Welsh Government. · Community transport in the SWWITCH network is diverse and a diverse range of funding mechanisms are used by the CT sector.
Page 34
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 16
Table 2.3: South West Wales Community Transport Provision
Local Council Door to Door Car Scheme Group Transport School / ASC / Shopmobility Rural District Minibus Health Contracts Bus / DRT Carmarthenshire Country Cars (Carmarthenshire Carmarthenshire Carmarthenshire CC Carmarthen Bwcabus County Council CC / RVS) in Ammanford, County Council (Social Services) Shopmobility Llanelli, Kidwelly, Gwendraeth, (Social Services) vehicles for access to Caerfyrddin Whitland, Llandeilo, St Clears, health services Llanelli & Trelech, Pencader, Newcastle District Emlyn and surrounding area Shopmobility Ystradgynlais Community Car Scheme Pontarddulais and District Community Car Scheme City & County of DANSA Ltd DANSA Ltd DANSA Ltd DANSA Ltd Swansea DANSA Swansea Pontarddulais and District Neath Port Talbot CT City & County of Mobility Hire Ltd Community Car Scheme Swansea (Social
Page 35 Gorseinon Car Scheme Services) Gower Voluntary Transport Neath Port Talbot DANSA Ltd DANSA Ltd DANSA Ltd DANSA Ltd Neath Port DANSA County Borough Neath Port Talbot Upper Amman Car Scheme Canolfan Gofal Plant Neath Port Talbot CT Talbot Ltd Council Shopmobility CT Neath Port Talbot CT Tiddlywinks Childcare Centre Ystalyfera Car Scheme Neath Port Talbot CT
Pembrokeshire The Bloomfield Bus Cars for Carers The Bloomfield Bus Pembrokeshire County Council Preseli Rural RVS Pembrokeshire Country Preseli Rural County Council Transport Cars Transport Association (Social services fleet) access to health Association (Green (Green Dragon Bus / Dragon Bus / Town Town Rider) services. Pembrokeshire Rider) Pembrokeshire CT Voluntary Transport, Guildhall Dial a Services Access to Health Ride Pembrokeshire services Theatre Mwldan Voluntary Transport Film Club (Dial a Manorbier CT Ride) Manorbier CT
3 Development of Options
Page 36
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 18
3 Development of Options
3.1 Introduction
SWWITCH recognises the critical importance of continued engagement with the bus industry, key stakeholder organisations and a wide range of interested in the development of a Regional Network Strategy that is fit for purpose and meets the identified objectives for the region. Therefore, SWWITCH has consulted with stakeholders to help identify and shape the strategy options for consideration. As part of the development the consultation draft strategy the stakeholder engagement undertaken consisted of four main strands: · A stakeholder briefing and workshop in Carmarthen on 15th July 2013; · One-to-one meetings with the four bus companies responsible for the largest number of services in the SWWITCH region; · Meetings with each of the passenger transport managers from the four local authorities in the SWWITCH region; and · Separate meetings with representative organisations of operators and bus users.
For the purposes of this initial phase of consultation and to elicit views, the options presented for initial consideration were: · To continue with the current interim funding arrangements; · To move all funds to LKSG, removing all funding for revenue support; or · To move all funds to revenue support, removing all LKSG funding.
An overview of the views expressed at each of the above events or meetings is presented below, separately for each strand. 3.2 Stakeholder Meeting – 15th July 2013
A stakeholder workshop was arranged for the 15th July in Carmarthen and was attended by over twenty stakeholders from the commercial and community transport, user and government sectors. Appendix A provides a list of the stakeholders who attended the event, as well as the presentation slides and key findings. The purpose of this workshop was to raise awareness of the Regional Network Strategy process and to gather initial opinions about possible proposals to be included in the full, formal, six-week public consultation to follow. A scenario approach was used to test opinion about some of the key issues (for example funding for rural areas versus funding for urban areas) that any final strategy would need to address. Some key points made at the event were that: · Commercial operators were still absorbing and dealing with the changes made in April 2013 (along with other changes); · Both the option of moving all RTSG to Live Kilometres Support Grant (LKSG) and the option of moving all funding to revenue support were seen as being problematical. The former because it could lead to the loss of many currently contracted services; the latter because it would result in some currently commercial services becoming unviable and requiring subsidy; and · Service quality was seen as being important, but support for penalising failure to meet specified standards was limited. It was commented that getting the basics right (availability and reliability) was far more important to passengers.
Page 37
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 19
3.3 Operator Views
One-to-one meetings were held with the four commercial operators responsible for operating most of the bus services in the SWWITCH region, namely: · First Cymru, Swansea; · Richards Brothers, Cardigan; · Silcox Coaches, Pembroke Dock; and · South Wales Transport, Neath. Whilst individual operators’ opinions varied, there was a clear consensus that uncertainty and change, without sufficient lead-time to allow businesses to adapt, would cause significant difficulty for operators and instability in services. There was limited support for adjusting the balance between LKSG and revenue support, but a warning that if this went too far (in either direction) then services would suffer, and fares would have to rise.
3.4 Local Authority Views
Meetings were held with the Heads of Passenger Transport (and other appropriate staff) from each of the four local authorities in the SWWITCH region. There is a lack of transparency about what is a wholly commercial service (i.e. one which could operate without any LKSG or revenue support) was believed to be a hindrance. Ideally these services would receive no SWWITCH funding, thereby leaving more money to support services that would not operate without help. There was interest in the potential for CT to ‘close the gaps’ that exist in bus provision, but some concern was expressed about the unstructured way in which CT is currently funded. Clearer guidelines, and a shared view of what CT should be doing, are important. Some flexibility was evident about the desirable balance between LKSG and revenue funding, with recognition of the pros and cons of moving the balance between these. However, the amount and timing of any changes was seen as critical. There was recognition of the synergies between home-to-school transport and local bus services. It was also agreed that the opportunities for co-ordination with health transport are interesting, as long as funding from the health sector accompanies new passengers. Concern was expressed by more than one authority about limited supply in the bus market in some areas. This results in fragility, because the withdrawal of one key operator (for whatever reason) would leave gaps which would be difficult to fill. The two rural counties to the west of the region expressed a view that they are very different from the two more densely populated authorities to the east of the region, and that the RNS needed to take these differences into account.
Page 38
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 20
3.5 Views of Representative Bodies
Four representative bodies were consulted on the draft strategy, these being Bus Users UK Wales, the Confederation of Passenger Transport Wales, the Community Transport Association Wales and the Public Transport Users’ Committee. A summary of the views of each body is presented below.
3.5.1 Bus Users UK Wales
Bus Users UK (BUUK) believed that if a choice is to be made about where funding goes, it should be on the basis of meeting social need and dealing with rurality. They were supportive of CT generally, but believed that there should be funding transparency, and better monitoring in place. BUUK could see that there are pros and cons in moving funding between LKSG and revenue support (in either direction), and felt that these should be explored further. Their view was that making significant changes by April 2014 may be impossible to achieve, and suggested that April 2015 may be a better date to make major changes.
3.5.2 Confederation of Passenger Transport Wales
Echoing the view from the commercial operators consulted, uncertainty was seen as the major concern of CPT. The timescales proposed were regarded as being very tight, indicating that local authorities will need more staff and expertise to manage a complete review of the network. Complex issues remain to be resolved, including around concessionary fares. A danger was perceived that the good working relationship between operators and local authorities could be permanently damaged by significant changes to the system. CPT believed that the kind of changes being proposed cannot happen by April 2014 and a more extended lead time is required.
3.5.3 Community Transport Association Wales
CTA welcomed a more robust approach to funding, if it incorporates more transparency over the bidding process and more effective monitoring. The piecemeal nature of the current funding arrangements was acknowledged; funding is different in each local authority area. CT services themselves also vary greatly from area to area. CTA believed that there should be more consistency in the local authorities’ approach to funding CT. CTA also expressed interest in exploring working with the health sector, and in engaging with discussions about new and innovative ways of working.
3.5.4 Public Transport Users’ Committee
PTUC welcomed the LKSG system and proposals to associate levels of payment with service quality standards. It felt that any changes should be driven by the goal of achieving benefits for passengers and that proper consultation should be undertaken with users. Balance was needed between the outcomes of different funding options and should follow policy priorities; thus preference to social inclusion and rural issues over commercial service support.
Page 39
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 21
CT was noted as patchy in the SWWITCH region, with good and bad examples. There is a need for enhanced standards, transparency and accountability and additional CT Officer support from authorities might be helpful, but any changes need to be ‘user driven’. They agreed that there is scope to link the RNS to NHS transport policy. PTUC also supported the concept of linking RTSG revenue support to that provided by local authorities.
3.6 Conclusions
Consultation has been a key element in the development of this strategy, with engagement with key stakeholders, such as the bus operators helping to shape the different strategy options from the early stages. In the development of a draft strategy consultation was undertaken with a variety of key stakeholders in the form of a workshop event, as well as separate meetings with the key operators within the SWWITCH region, the four Local Authorities and Representative Bodies. Views varied significantly between different stakeholders. However, there was consensus of opinion that a significant amount of time and resources would be needed to review the network in detail, and that operators would need sufficient time to adapt to any change to the current funding arrangements if service instability is to be avoided. This initial consultation also strongly indicated that moving all funding to either LKSG or Revenue Support would not be supported by key stakeholders in the SWWITCH area. The options taken to formal consultation were therefore toned down to reflect these views, as outlined in Section 4.
Page 40
4 Identified Formal Consultation Options
Page 41
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 23
4 Identified Formal Consultation Options
4.1 Introduction
This section outlines the different options considered by SWWITCH for the distribution of RTSG funds and the impacts that these could have upon different parts of the SWWITCH region if they were implemented. The options presented in this section formed the basis of the draft strategy that was taken to formal consultation and were deliberately chosen to be radical in nature to allow the impacts of different funding approaches to be assessed and to ascertain the views of stakeholders and the public on the key concepts. This section provides an overview of the options and a brief summary of their impacts. The wider impacts of these options are further explored in subsequent sections which consider the views expressed by the public and stakeholders on the consultation draft strategy and options, the financial performance and impacts of the options, as well as the accessibility impacts of each option. Section 8 provides an overview of the appraisal of these options and a justification for the preferred strategy, which is outlined in Section 9. 4.2 Identified Options
The SWWITCH RNS is intended to be a comprehensive document, which guides all decisions by SWWITCH and its constituent authorities about the bus and CT services they want to shape and support. As noted before, however, the main tool they have to do this is RTSG funding, and the way that will be distributed forms the central issue for consideration. This decision is important and can influence whether bus services survive in some areas, or the extent to which they can be controlled by the public sector. In any case, it should be borne in mind that the amount of public money available to help fund passenger transport services is likely to diminish in the next few years. If service users are not to be seriously affected, the lost funds will need to be made up from operators’ commercial initiatives and / or smarter ways of using the available funds. However, the starting point for the analysis presented in this section is that any reduction in overall income to operators will lead to reductions in services as well as higher fares. For the purposes of our modelling and option appraisal we have assumed that all other forms of funding – including local authorities’ own bus subsidy funding – will remain unchanged, although we recognise this may not reflect the real world. To assess the impacts of potential changes, we have developed a spreadsheet model which includes all bus services in the SWWITCH Area, and estimates their income from all sources (e.g. passenger fares, RTSG, council revenue support). More details on this model can be found in the supporting documentation Appendix E. This allows us to see how income varies for each service under different conditions, and to apply realistic algorithms to the financial results to predict how operators’ reactions are likely to affect the supply of services. This approach only works with conventional bus services, of course: the funding and operation of CT services have different criteria, and are considered separately later in this strategy. We have considered two main ways in which the balance between the two streams of RTSG might be altered from the current baseline: · Reducing LKSG, and putting more money into revenue support (services run under contract to the councils), some of which will be needed to replace currently ‘commercial’ services which cease to be viable as a result; or · Transferring money from revenue support into raising the value of LKSG, so that fewer services should need council subsidy and supporting development of successful services which can encourage modal shift. Taking forward either of these options to their extremes (i.e. all RTSG funding to provide revenue support or putting all funds into LKSG) was rejected in the light of stakeholders’ views at the Stakeholder workshop and individual meetings as outlined in Section 3. Therefore the following scenarios were developed:
Page 42
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 24
Scenario 1: – Maintain the current balance between revenue support and LKSG Scenario 2: – Reduce LKSG by 70%, while RTSG revenue support is increased by 80%. Scenario 3: – Increase LKSG by 50%, while RTSG revenue support is reduced by 60%.
4.3 Overview of Option Impacts
Scenario 1 is effectively the maintenance of the interim arrangements currently in place in relation to the balance between Revenue Support and LKSG. Therefore the information presented in the Baseline section of this report (Section 2) outlines the levels of service provision predicted with this option. The changes in the overall level of bus services anticipated resulting from Options 2 and 3 within each part of the SWWITCH area are illustrated in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Note that these refer to the overall supply of services, and not to the frequency offered on any one particular route. It must also be noted that we have had to use generic data in our modelling of most operators’ services at this stage, so the results can only be regarded as indicative. The maps show only principal bus routes, and refer only to daytime services on Mondays to Saturdays; effects might be different on evening and Sunday services. 4.3.1 Scenario 2
Scenario 2 assumes that LKSG would be reduced by 70%, while RTSG revenue support would increase by 80%. The expected results of this (shown in Figure 4.1) would be that: · Overall service levels would reduce significantly (by 10-30%) in Swansea, Port Talbot and the Swansea and Neath valleys, where current services are predominantly run commercially, but the adverse effects would be greatest in rural Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, including the Tenby area. · This may be taken as a ‘worst case’ illustration, since the model does not reallocate any ‘excess’ RTSG revenue support to other services. However, this would be balanced by the need to transfer funds to other (local authority) contracted services, which would require additional support to compensate for the reduction in LKSG. · The only areas relatively unaffected would be the upper Afan Valley and Llanelli and its hinterland. This partly reflects the high incidence of RTSG-funded contracts in the latter area. This also helps to mitigate the impacts in the Swansea and Neath Port Talbot areas, where there would tend to be a transfer of services from the commercial to the contracted sectors – if they could be afforded.
4.3.2 Scenario 3
Scenario 3 assumes that LKSG would be increased by 50%, while RTSG revenue support would reduce by 60%. The expected results of this (shown in Figure 4.2) would be that: · Overall service levels would reduce significantly (by over 10%) across much of rural Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, with the most severe adverse effects in the areas north-east and south-west of Carmarthen and south of Pembroke Dock. · In Swansea and Neath Port Talbot, where most services currently run commercially, risks to services would be minimal, and there should be opportunities for development of routes and extension of commercial operations. Even in the Tenby and Newport areas, services should be stable or positive. · The worst affected areas are those most dependent on services directly supported by RTSG especially Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. It would be expected that the need for contracted services would decline in urban areas, possibly allowing some diversion of RTSG to support additional services, but this
Page 43
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 25
would require a regional approach and agreement. This would not be possible if individual LAs sought to retain any savings locally, even if they arose from previously ‘authority’ funded contracts.
4.4 Quality standards
Welsh Government guidance indicates that the payment of RTSG should enable the RTC to ensure the provision of enhanced quality services, and SWWITCH is required to indicate the outcomes it will seek to enforce. It has indicated to the government that it agrees with proposals that certain standards should be basic conditions of RTSG payment to operators, covering: · Reliability; · Punctuality; · Cleanliness of vehicles; · Good information; and · Operation of a Customer Charter. However, proposals for up to 21 separate standards to be met on a national basis are viewed by SWWITCH and stakeholder consultees as unduly onerous, and likely to reduce the supply of actual and potential bus operators to inadequate levels, especially in sparsely populated areas. The effort and cost of complying with so many standards, some of which appear to offer little if any benefit to passengers, would deter or defeat many smaller concerns. The penalties suggested for non-compliance would ensure their services ceased to be sustainable. SWWITCH proposes that a two-tier approach could be adopted to the payment of LKSG, with a premium rate payable to those operators which entered and adhered to a Quality Standards Agreement (QSA) with SWWITCH. It is envisaged that there would be a small number of templates for QSAs, enabling them to be tailored to the circumstances of the operator and area. For example, a QSA covering lightly-used rural services is likely to exclude technological features such as audio-visual ‘next stop’ announcements (which can be compensated for by personalised customer care by the driver), while one covering busy city services might well include this feature as well as other innovations, such as smart ticketing. As part of the formal consultation views were requested on the appropriateness of the above approach.
4.5 Community Transport
The specific characteristics of CT, both operationally and in its relationship with its users, are such that the planning and commissioning approaches used for conventional public transport services are unlikely to be appropriate or effective. In any case, SWWITCH will continue to dedicate 10% of RTSG to CT, in line with Welsh Government guidance, alongside varying levels of additional support from the individual LAs. The CT sector in South West Wales has developed in response to needs which are not being met by commercial providers. It typically has a different character in rural locations compared to urban areas. Some DRT services, such as Bwcabus, combine some elements of CT (advance booking; provision for passengers with reduced mobility) with delivery by conventional bus operators. The starting point for SWWITCH is to recognise that CT has a role to play in delivering the outcomes of the RNS, and that the support for CT should be targeted towards these RNS outcomes. This may seem obvious; however, this might then lead to a series of logical assumptions which could potentially have significant implications for the current CT sector. For example, the change from the status quo in both funds available for individual operators, and the kinds of service they might be called upon to deliver.
Page 44
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 26
If CT is to contribute effectively to the RNS, then there needs to be a regional strategy for community transport. This strategy should be based on an objective assessment of needs (demand) and an assessment of how much of this demand SWWITCH and its constituent LAs can realistically hope to meet. The other key factor is the capacity and capability of the existing CT sector. There are established methodologies for determining both the level of need, and the resources an efficient CT operator would require in meeting that need. The central role of need in deciding CT provision, highlights the fact that part of the function of CT will be to fill gaps in the conventional transport network; hence, although it will always be a dynamic situation, the desired shape of CT provision within the region can only be determined once the effects of funding changes on the mainstream network are known. In other words, there will be a time lag before it is sensible to make detailed decisions on CT. The extent to which users are able, or expected, to contribute in fares is also a matter of policy that would determine the cost base of services. All these factors need to be taken into account as part of the process of formulating a service specification. Ultimately, procurement of CT should be rationalised across the SWWITCH region in a way that demonstrates a consistent contribution to the RNS, but which also recognises the local strength of the current operations, and how a productive balance between the two might be achieved. Although the work to achieve the service specification can be specialised and time-consuming, it is only the first step. Moving from the current system of provision and support for CT to a more strategic pattern of commissioning, while simultaneously acting in a way that does not undermine or unnecessarily damage the existing CT providers, is a challenging task which will require: · an understanding of the existing, baseline provision; · an understanding of the individual CT operators’ business models; · capacity building initiatives, where appropriate, for existing CT groups (potentially this could be carried out by the local authorities, with involvement from the Community Transport Association); · consultation with a range of stakeholders and service users in each community; · a view of which procurement methods are appropriate and effective in securing the services that each community needs; and · an understanding of the ‘softer’ issues that relate to CT – e.g. political will, levels of volunteer input, quality standards, and community engagement.
4.6 Conclusions
The options presented in section 4.2 highlight the varied impacts that could result from different extreme positions in relation to the balance with which RTSG funds could be spent. The two alternative options for the bus network are both predicted to have significant negative consequences for some parts of the SWWITCH region, although there are also potential benefits for some areas from both, and the full repercussions of each option cannot be simply illustrated.
Page 45
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 27
Figure 4.1: The Impact of Scenario 2 on Service Levels Page 46
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 28
Figure 4.2: The Impact of Scenario 3 on Service Levels Page 47
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 29
5 Formal Consultation Responses
Page 48
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 30
5 Formal Consultation Responses
5.1 Introduction
As well as undertaking initial consultation to help shape the development of the draft strategy options formal consultation was undertaken on the consultation draft strategy report over a six week period from the 26th July to the 13th September 2013. As part of this the consultation draft strategy was distributed widely to key local stakeholders within the SWWITCH area including parish and county councillors, bus operators, passenger groups and key national bodies representing different interest groups. The document was also advertised on the SWWITCH website for comments from the wider public. As well as requesting general comments on the draft strategy the following key questions were asked as part of this consultation: 1. Do you agree with the SWWITCH high level objectives for the Regional Network strategy? 2. Would you support the continuation of the current mechanism for distributing RTSG funding (scenario 1 – the baseline position)? 3. Would you support changing the current mechanism for distributing RTSG funding so that LKSG would be reduced by 70% and RTSG revenue support would be increased by 80% (scenario 2)? 4. Would you support changing the current mechanism for distributing RTSG funding so that LKSG would be increased by 50% and RTSG revenue support would be reduced by 60% (scenario 3)? 5. Do you support the introduction of quality standards across the region as set out in section 4.4? 6. Would you support the introduction of the two tier approach to quality outcomes where standards are tailored to the area and type of bus operation? The responses to these questions as well as a flavour of the detailed comments received is outlined in this section of the report and has been used to help inform the appraisal of strategy options (Section 8) as well as the development of the final strategy (Section 9). 5.2 Response Rate
In total 61 separate responses were received on the consultation draft strategy from a wide range of different groups including members of the public, bus and community transport operators, town and parish council representatives, councillors, and groups representing specific causes. Appendix X provides a list of the groups who responded to this consultation. Detailed comments were provided by these individuals on the strategy, although not all respondents felt sufficiently able to answer or comment on all of the above questions. 5.3 Views on the SWWITCH RNS Objectives
Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 indicate the responses received to each of the six consultation questions. In terms of question 1 on the high level objectives of the RNS (as outlined in section 1.4 of this report) the majority of consultees (92%) agreed with the SWWITCH high level objectives for the RNS. The below quotes give a flavour of the responses received to this question. • Broadly agree (with the RNS objectives), but rural areas must be protected and not sacrificed for the sake of urban. Bus Operator • We understand the aspirations of having a balance of services across the region, however we are concerned about how this will be achieved given the differences in provision across the region. Local Transport Forum
Page 49
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 31
• With reference to the inclusion of ‘user needs’, we would emphasise the importance of proactively engaging with older people about changes to services which may affect them, given that many older people rely on public transport to get out and about. Age Cymru • We agree with the high level objectives identified, especially those of maximising market growth and also the aim of identifying key quality outcomes to meet the requirements of the Regional Transport Services Grant. Public Transport Users’ Committee for Wales
5.4 Views on the Strategy Options
Fewer respondents felt qualified to indicate what their preferred strategy option would be due to the complexity of the issues involved. However, 79% of those who did respond to these questions said they would support the continuation of the current funding arrangements. In terms of the two proposed alternative approaches only 9% of people would support either of these approaches, with 48 to 50% not supporting either option and a further 41 to 42% unsure. In terms of the comments received on the various options the below quotes provide an overview of the responses. • In the absence of any better alternative, we would support the continuation of the current mechanism for distribution RTSG funding. Bus Operator • This (Option 1 – the current funding arrangements) would be the preferred scenario as it is a known quantity and would avoid further change/disruption for key stakeholders. Local Interest Group • Yes, we support the baseline position (Option 1) which would provide the most balanced support required for the continuation of community transport services. CTA Cymru • No (To Option 2), as we feel this would have a negative impact on commercial providers and will push the cost of fares up. Community Transport Operator • We would not support this scenario (Option 3) as not only would this involve further change and disruption for key stakeholders, it is likely to heavily impact on rural areas where there are a high proportion of subsidised services. Local Interest Group • Reduction in or loss of services would impact on health and welfare provision, the economy and the general standard of living for many residing in this predominantly rural area. Community Council • No, this option (Option 3) would clearly favour urban areas, therefore more money to commercial services and less to traditionally supported services. Local Councillor
5.5 Views on Quality Standards
The concept of introducing quality standards was consulted upon. Of those who responded to the RNS consultation 90% supported the concept of introducing quality standards. On the concept of a two-tier approach 66% of respondents also supported this concept, although fewer respondents felt able to answer this particular question, with 21% unsure. A number of comments were received in relation to quality standards and the below quotes provide a flavour of the responses received. • We agree with the thinking that 21 separate standards from 2014/15 is too onerous and that an element of prioritisation over say a 5 year period would be better. Traveline Cymru • Yes, quality standards are important but the idea of varying standards for different types of operator makes sense. I also agree that the standards should be brought in gradually to allow operators to make buses accessible first. Member of Public
Page 50
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 32
• We have no objection to the introduction of quality standards so long as they are designed to improve the overall customer experience and are not so punitive that they are a disincentive to operate. Bus Operator • Yes. We think it’s very important to introduce quality standards throughout the region. Community Council • In principle ABMUHB supports the quality standards proposed. The two tier approach suggested appears sensible. Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board
5.6 Views on Timescales
Although not a question specifically asked as part of the formal consultation a number of respondents commented on the issue of the timescales imposed by the Welsh Government for implementation of the RNS strategy and any changes which would directly affect operators. The below quotes provide examples of the kind of views held on this issue. • Given the concern that short-notice funding changes would damage bus services, I would suggest a long notice period before any changes are implemented during which time bus operators should be approached to established whether they intend to stop operating any services. This should allow replacement services to be tendered ready to take over when the previous service is withdrawn. Member of Public • I feel that more time is necessary to explore all the options. Unnamed • At least one more year is required in order to fully assess the impact and implement changes necessary to minimise further disruption to bus operations in Wales. Driving forward further changes at this time will not help bus operators realign their operations and stabilise their business to take account of the reduced funding already in place. Bus Operator • We totally agree that the timescale is too tight especially as there is the Welsh Ambulance Review to consider... Time and resources are needed to review the current network in detail before appropriate plans and strategies are to be introduced. Local Community Council
5.7 Additional Consultation with the Health Boards.
Additional meetings were held during the consultation period with both the Local Health Boards covering the SWWITCH area, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board (ABMU) and Hywel Dda Health Board (HDHB).3 These gave particular attention to the issue of non-emergency patient transport, or patient care service (PCS), which was concurrently undergoing review at national level. The form of PCS organisation following reconfiguration of the Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust (WAST) was unclear at the time of the meetings, although it was clear that the Health Boards would play a larger role than hitherto. ABMU also supplemented its comments at the meeting by a written consultation submission. Both ABMU and HDHB are already working with SWWITCH and the relevant constituent authorities on transport issues. Existing initiatives include, for example, the contracting by HDHB of local authority accessible minibuses for patient discharge transport during their downtime between social services duties. It was agreed by both Boards that there is considerable scope for improvements in the quality and efficiency of services through better integration of health and public or community transport. However, the practical approach of each differs: while ABMU had been looking to centralise the organisation of PCS with WAST, including that provided by external suppliers, HDHB is taking over direct responsibility for arranging a growing proportion of PCS journeys.
3 ABMU covers City & County of Swansea and Neath Port Talbot CBC, as well as Bridgend CBC; HDHB covers Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire CCs, along with Ceredigion CC
Page 51
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 33
ABMU drew particular attention to the impacts of shared service development between health and social services, and the need to take full account of the reshaping plans for NHS services in south Wales. Both of the Health Boards expressed willingness to work with SWWITCH in developing and implementing the RNS, stressing the importance of cross-boundary movements to their planning and their patients. An evolutionary approach was favoured, with continuation of current funding arrangements in 2014/15 while discussions continue about potential integration of services. 5.8 Additional Consultation with the Community Transport Association
A further consultation meeting was held with the Director - Wales of the CTA in late October, to discuss a draft of this final report. CTA reiterated the desirability of a consistent approach to and provision of CT across the region, based on assessed needs. The sector is already working closely with local authorities, RTCs and the health service to explore issues of co-ordination and to implement initiatives to improve the efficiency and delivery of services. In view of this, concern was expressed that the potential for additional SWWITCH resources in this field might lead to duplication of effort, although it was acknowledged that it was unclear how well all the existing initiatives interacted. There was some disappointment that the RNS was not more focussed on defining an improved regional network, combining bus and CT services, to address identified gaps in provision and with Quality Outcomes established for CT from the outset. However, the rationale for (and difficulties of) the holistic approach sought in the RNS was appreciated, although CTA took the view that uncertainties about future policies and funding should not deter us from taking decisions now. 5.9 Conclusions
As part of the formal consultation SWWITCH has undertaken on the draft RNS strategy the opinions of a range of organisations and interested individuals has been sought. This has indicated strong support for the SWWITCH RNS objectives, as well as support for the option of maintaining the current funding mechanisms. Respondents stressed the need for adequate periods of time to be allowed for considered decision-making by all parties, and measured adaptation to changed circumstances. Those taking part in the consultation have also indicated strong support for the introduction of quality standards and moderate support for the concept of a two-tiered approach. These views have been incorporated into the appraisal of the three options (outlined in Section 8) and the development of the final strategy, as outlined in Section 9.
Page 52
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 34
Table 5.1: Consultation Responses No. % Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure Q1 Do you agree with the SWWITCH high 33 1 2 92% 3% 6% level objectives for the Regional Network strategy?
Q2 Would you support the continuation of 27 2 5 79% 6% 15% the current mechanism for distributing RTSG funding (scenario 1 – the baseline position)?
Q3 Would you support changing the 3 16 14 9% 48% 42% current mechanism for distributing RTSG funding so that LKSG would be reduced by 70% and RTSG revenue support would be increased by 80% (scenario 2)? Q4 Would you support changing the 3 16 13 9% 50% 41% current mechanism for distributing RTSG funding so that LKSG would be increased by 50% and RTSG revenue support would be reduced by 60% (scenario 3)? Q5 Do you support the introduction of 36 3 1 90% 8% 3% quality standards across the region as set out in section 4.4?
Q6 Would you support the introduction of 23 4 7 68% 12% 21% the two tier approach to quality outcomes where standards are tailored to the area and type of bus operation?
Page 53
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 35
Figure 5.1: Consultation Responses
Page 54
6 Financial Impacts
Page 55
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 37
6 Financial Impacts
6.1 Introduction
Our assessment of the financial impacts of the strategy options being considered is based on a detailed model of operators’ service-by-service income, which was developed specifically for this project, more details on which can be found in Appendix E of the supporting evidence. This model draws upon several sources of data, including: § SWWITCH data on km run and LKSG payments; § Operators’ electronic ticket and revenue data; and § Local authorities’ data on contract payments and concessionary reimbursement. Where actual data were not available, such as for passengers and revenue on commercially operated services, we have applied estimates based on TAS’ experience of the typical levels of revenue required to sustain services of different types4 run by either major (group) or minor operators. Rates for the latter are lower, reflecting this sector’s typically lower cost base and willingness to accept reduced margins. Using these data, we built up a picture of total income on each bus service in the SWWITCH area for a nominal four-week period, comprising three school term weeks and one week of school holidays (thus approximating to the proportions across a year). These were standardised into revenue per kilometre; these and the (weekday daytime) service frequency (expressed as buses per hour) entered as fixed ‘baseline’ figures into the spreadsheets. The Options scenarios were then modelled by varying the input multipliers for the LKSG rate per km and the RTSG subsidy payments, and measuring the outturn revenue per km against the baseline figure for each service. From this, a percentage reduction (or increase) in revenue was calculated, which was translated into a ‘service impact indicator’ at the levels shown in the following table. Table 6.1: Correlation between change in Revenue per km and Service Impact Indicator Reduction in Revenue per km Service Impact Indicator 2% or less 2 3% to 8% 3 9% to 18% 4 19% to 28% 5 29% or more 6
The service impact indicator correlates the existing frequency with a revised frequency (buses per hour) based on our assessment of the likely outcome of a fall in revenue of that magnitude. This is a mixture of the operator’s commercial evaluation and the likely patronage response to any initial change; it is therefore intended to represent the medium-term position, including any further need to economise as a result of further revenue loss from service reductions5. This measure is necessarily subjective in part. In all of the following, it is important to note that we are considering a zero-sum situation: the total amount of money distributed through LKSG or RTSG subsidy would remain unchanged. Therefore any ‘winners’ from one source must be balanced by ‘losers’ from the other. Differences between the scenarios arise from the way in which the funds are distributed, and not from any change in the total.
4 Services split between: Urban; Rural; Inter-urban; Schools 5 Using a service elasticity of demand of 0.44
Page 56
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 38
6.2 Scenario 2 results
The results for Scenario 2 showed that the amount paid directly to operators as LKSG would reduce by £150,000, while the RTSG subsidy pot would increase by a similar amount. Overall, 13 operators would receive less in combined RTSG, while 8 would receive more (before any redistribution, discussed in Section 7.1). The most adversely affected would be those operators running the greatest proportion of fully commercial services, many of which could be expected to become unsustainable and thus require some subsidy if they were to continue. The reductions would also affect all tendered services (whether RTSG- or council-funded), which might require an uplift in subsidy to maintain their viability. (It should be noted that the operator retains the commercial risk on nearly all tendered services in the SWWITCH area.)
6.3 Scenario 3 results
The results for Scenario 3 showed that the amount paid directly to operators as LKSG would increase by £105,000, while the RTSG subsidy pot would decrease by a similar amount. Overall, 8 operators would receive less in combined RTSG – the mirror image of the Scenario 2 list – while 13 would receive more (before any redistribution). The most adversely affected would be those operators running the greatest proportion of services in receipt of RTSG-funded subsidy, which may be quite arbitrarily separated from those paid for by councils’ core funding. Although such services would, like all others, benefit from the uplift in LKSG, this would generally be insignificant compared with the loss of subsidy payments.
6.4 Summary of Financial Impacts
The above analysis of the financial impacts of the two scenario alternatives indicate that both options would have significant impacts on different operators in terms of the overall levels of funding available to them. Both options therefore have the potential for services to be cancelled or even for operators to go out of business. Therefore in financial terms neither option would be considered preferential over maintenance of the current arrangements.
Page 57
7 Accessibility Impacts
Page 58
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 40
7 Accessibility Impacts
7.1 Introduction
The key role of any public transport network is to provide the public with the access they require to key destinations, such as employment, education and health. Where accessibility to these key services is poor or not available this can lead to a range of social exclusion and associated deprivation issues. Therefore the RNS seeks to maximise the levels of accessibility that can be achieved to help avoid issues of deprivation and isolation. A key objective of this strategy is: · To support access to employment, health, education, retail and leisure - to minimise deprivation and isolation; Therefore, to ensure that the RNS maximises the benefits of any changes to the existing bus network and avoids causing social exclusion impacts the different options under consideration have been tested in terms of their strategic accessibility impacts. This assessment initially looks at the spatial impacts of changes in service levels in terms of the impacts on urban and rural areas before considering how these impacts could affect people currently experiencing deprivation issues and how the changes in service could affect different journey purposes. It should be noted that both Options generate a net increase in funding for certain operators, the effects of which cannot be readily allocated to any particular services. In the case of Option 2, reclaim of this increase would generate some subsidy funds for re-distribution by SWWITCH, although this would be unlikely to buy back all the services withdrawn by the net losers. Option 3 would place the ‘surplus’ with some operators, which would enable them to run a wider range of services commercially. In turn, this should free some subsidy funds to buy back other lost services. Although this would to some extent help to mitigate the negative effects described below, in neither case could it be expected that the current network would be maintained. 7.2 Urban and Rural Impacts
The options presented in Section 4 of this report are likely to impact upon the balance of services present in urban and rural parts of the SWWITCH area. To understand these impacts the modelled changes in service level on a corridor basis have been assessed against the urban and rural classification devised by the ONS. Figure 7.1 presents this classification for the SWWITCH area. This shows that the areas classified as urban are focused in Swansea and Neath Port Talbot local authority areas, with only small patches classified as urban in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire. The majority of these two counties are classified as either villages or hamlets and isolated dwellings. The financial model zones have been divided into these four different urban/rural classification groupings. The average change in service level has been presented by urban and rural classification in Table 7.1 to illustrate the likely impacts. This analysis shows that Option 2 is particularly bad for urban areas, reducing service levels by an average of 3.5 buses per hour on corridors in the urban areas. For the most rural classification (Hamlets and Isolated Dwellings) the option reduces service levels only slightly, by less than 0.5 services per hour on average. Option 3 reduces service levels in urban areas less than Option 2, by slightly over one service per hour. This option also has similar impacts to Option 2 on services for corridors in villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings, indicating that it is slightly better all round. However, neither option presents positive impacts over the present situation, which offers better levels of service for both urban and rural areas than the alternatives presented.
Page 59
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 41
Table 7.1: Service Level Changes by Urban / Rural Classification Average change in buses per hour Zone Type Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Most Urban 0 -3.5 -1.2 Urban Town and Fringe 0 -1.0 -0.6
Village 0 -0.6 -0.6
Hamlets and Isolated 0 -0.4 -0.4 Most Dwellings Rural
Figure 7.1: ONS Urban Rural Classification
Page 60
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 42
7.3 Index of Multiple Deprivation
To ensure that the RNS has a positive impact on people experiencing deprivation it is first necessary to understand the current spatial patterns of deprivation within the SWWITCH area. The Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD 2011) has been analysed to establish the current patterns of deprivation. Figure 7.2 shows the pattern of overall combined deprivation score for each Lower Super Output Area. This highlights that the most deprived areas (in red) are focused into urban parts of the SWWITCH area, including Port Talbot, Neath, Llanelli, Swansea, Pembroke Dock and Milford Haven. The overall score suggests that the rural parts of the study area do not suffer the same levels of deprivation as the urban areas. However, this measure somewhat overlooks the issues that rural residents have in accessing key services of which public transport provision is a key determinant, and the impacts that this can have on them in terms of social inclusion. Figure 7.3 therefore focuses on the issue of access to services. This indicates a very different picture, with the rural parts of Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and Swansea experiencing high levels of deprivation due to poor levels of access to services, with the urban areas experiencing much lower levels of access to services deprivation. This highlights the importance of public transport provision to the residents of these rural areas. Each of the strategy financial options have been assessed in terms of how the zone by zone changes in service frequency anticipated would impact upon overall and access to services deprivation. The scores contained in table 7.2 are average changes in service level weighted by the WIMD scores for each zone. Comparisons of the weighted changes in service frequency across the area by scenario indicates that scenario 2 would have the largest negative impact both for overall deprivation and access to services deprivation as the largest decreases in service provision correlate more strongly with areas which exhibit higher levels of deprivation. Scenario 3 involves service impacts which are less strongly correlated with the areas which exhibit deprivation, but neither option is an improvement on the current situation and current service frequencies.
Table 7.2: Average change in service level weighted by WIMD Score Scenario Option 1 (Current) 2 3 WIMD Overall 0 -1.6 -0.7 WIMD Access to Services 0 -0.9 -0.6
Page 61
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 43
Figure 7.2: Overall IMD Score
Figure 7.3 IMD Access to Services Score
Page 62
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 44
7.4 Assessing Accessibility Impacts
The locations of key strategically important destinations in the study area have been established for each of the following key themes to tie in with the RNS objective of supporting access to employment, health, education, retail and leisure: · Access to Employment · Access to Hospital · Access to Secondary, Further and Higher Education · Access to key retail centres · Access to leisure and tourist destinations.
Figures 7.4 to 7.8 show the locations of these destinations. Further details about the destinations used in this assessment can be found in the supporting documentation Appendix D. To assess the accessibility impacts of the different proposed financial scenarios GIS software has been used to establish which bus corridor each key destination is served by. The changes in service frequency predicted for each corridor have then been weighted using the destination information at a zonal level to establish the extent of impacts that could be expected from each option for each destination type. Table 7.3 shows the weighted average changes in service levels predicted for each destination type for each option. This shows that Option 2 causes larger service frequency decreases for each destination type than Option 1. Option 2 has particularly significant negative impacts for access to retail destinations. Access to hospitals is the least negatively affected journey purpose for Option 2. Option 3, although having slightly lower levels service frequency reduction than scenario 2 also has negative impacts for all trip purposes. The impacts again are worst for retail, with employment, leisure and tourism the least badly affected trip purposes. Neither option 2 or 3 presents positive benefits over maintenance of the current situation at a zonal level, therefore in accessibility terms it is recommended that the current status quo is maintained.
Page 63
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 45
Table 7.3: Change in service level by destination type (change in average buses per hour) Scenario Option 1 (Current) 2 3 Education 0 -1.9 -1.2 Employment 0 -2.1 -1.1 Hospital 0 -1.2 -1.2 Leisure and Tourism 0 -1.8 -1.1 Retail 0 -3.0 -1.5
Figure 7.4: Key Education Destinations
Page 64
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 46
Figure 7.5: Key Employment Destinations
Figure 7.6: Key Health Destinations
Page 65
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 47
Figure 7.7: Key Leisure and Tourist Destinations
Figure 7.8: Key Retail Destinations
Page 66
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 48
7.5 Accessibility Conclusions
The provision of accessibility is a fundamental requirement of the public transport network to help avoid social exclusion and deprivation amongst the population. In the study area development and deprivation patterns are spatially complex, with high levels of overall deprivation focused in some urban areas, but large rural parts of the study area whilst not deprived overall experience significant impacts due to lack of access to services. In terms of how the proposed options will influence deprived areas both options 2 and 3 have negative consequences, with option 2 particularly severe for deprived urban areas. The impacts of the options for different types of destination have also been assessed. This suggests that both options will have significant negative impacts, particularly for retail trips, which may then have knock on consequences for the vitality of town retail centres. Again Option 2 has more significant negative impacts than Option 3, but neither option appears as good as maintaining current funding arrangements (Option 1).
Page 67
8 Option Appraisal and Justification of a Preferred Option
Page 68
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 50
8 Option Appraisal and Justification of a Preferred Option
8.1 Introduction
This section of the report provides an overview of the appraisal of each option and provides a framework for determining the preferred strategy option. This assessment follows the principals of the Welsh Transport Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG) in that is assesses each option against the Welsh pillars of sustainable development; Economy, Environment and Society. To ensure that the preferred option is also consistent with SWWITCH’s objectives the options have also been assessed against the key Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) of the study. Namely: · To support access to employment, health, education, retail and leisure - to minimise deprivation and isolation; · To maximise the value of investment, taking into account variations in topography, population dispersal and journey patterns; · To achieve a balance of services across the region; · To maximise market growth (within the confines of the resources available and the balance of services across the region); Options 2 and 3 have been assessed against a Do Minimum scenario (Option 1). Therefore there is no separate assessment of Option 1.
8.2 Appraisal of Options
Tables 8.1 and 8.2 present the summary appraisal of Options 2 and 3 against the Do Minimum scenario.
Page 69
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 51
Table 8.1: Appraisal of Option 2 Option Description: Scenario 2: Reduce LKSG by 70%, while RTSG revenue support is increased by 80%. Regional Network Strategy Objectives Objective Assessment To support access to employment, health, Modelling indicates that this option would reduce levels of accessibility significantly compared to the Do education, retail and leisure - to minimise Minimum option for all destination types, with retail access particularly badly affected and education, leisure deprivation and isolation and tourism less badly affected. Large Negative To maximise the value of investment, taking into This option would reduce service provision significantly in the urban areas of Swansea and Port Talbot, account variations in topography, population where services are predominantly run commercially. The largest impacts would however be felt on dispersal and journey patterns commercial services in rural Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, which are heavily reliant on LKSG funds. Additional locally sourced revenue support might be required to compensate for the reductions in LKSG. Slight Negative To achieve a balance of services across the This option is likely to reduce service provision in urban areas, with services in rural areas particularly region affected where services run commercially and less affected where the number of RTSG funded contracts are high. This would to some extent maintain a balance of services across the region. Neutral To maximise market growth (within the confines of This option would lead to a reduction in the commercial bus market, particularly in urban areas. Moderate the resources available and the balance of Negative services across the region)
Page 70 Welsh Impact Areas Criteria Assessment Distribution Significance Economy Costs: This option involves maintaining the current level of Service reductions are likely to Moderate Negative overall bus subsidy, but changing the balance towards be most severe on the least Revenue Support and away from LKSG. No capital costs and most frequent routes. would be involved. Connectivity would thus be lost or seriously reduced in The anticipated overall reduction in service levels and rural areas, and significantly frequencies resulting from this option would negatively affect reduced in the densest urban bus journey times for users. Overall Vehicle Operating Costs areas, with intermediate would also reduce due to the reduced number of vehicles results in other locations. TEE serving the area. (Transport Economic Efficiency) Levels of public subsidy from Local Authorities might have to increase to compensate for the loss of LKSG on contracted services and where it is identified that lost commercial service provision should be contracted.
Limited RTSG funding would be free to apply to these needs, but nsufficient to meet all demands.
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 52
Increasing revenue support and reducing LKSG would tend to Potential benefits for rural areas at Slight Negative preserve service provision in remote rural areas at the expense the expense of urban areas. of urban areas. This could help to maintain the economy of EALI rural areas whilst slightly reducing the economic (Economic Activity and Location Impacts) competitiveness of areas such as Swansea and Port Talbot where service levels have reduced. This option would also be likely to reduce access to retail centres, with associated impacts on the retail sectors in these urban areas. Environment The reduction in service provision in many parts of the study area will Small reductions in noise where Neutral Noise lead to a reduction in noise from buses, however some additional service levels reduce. journeys by car are likely to result, with associated noise impacts. Reductions in service provision in some areas may reduce local There may be localised benefits for Neutral Local Air Quality emissions; particularly relating to NOx and particulates from diesel some urban areas currently with bus engines. However, additional car journeys may result. high concentrations of buses. The net loss in levels of service provision is likely to result in Across study area Slight Negative Greenhouse Gas additional trips being made by car. This will lead to additional carbon Emissions emissions. This option is likely to reduce the number of buses travelling near to Potential benefits for landscape and Landscape and key landscape and townscape assets particularly in urban parts of the townscape assets in urban areas. Neutral Townscape area. This is likely to slightly reduce visual intrusion in these areas, Page 71 although an increase in cars may also result. This option is anticipated to have a neutral impact on bio-diversity as No impacts Neutral Bio-diversity no construction is involved. This option is likely to reduce the number of buses travelling near to Potential benefits for heritage sites Neutral key heritage assets particularly in urban parts of the area. This is in urban areas. Heritage likely to slightly reduce visual intrusion in these areas, although an increase in cars may also result. This option is anticipated to have a neutral impact on soil quality as no No impacts Neutral Water Environment construction is involved.
This option is anticipated to have a neutral impact on soil quality as no No impacts Neutral Soils construction is involved. Social A reduction in bus service provision may lead to an increase in the Negative impacts particularly for Slight Negative number of pedestrian trips. This could increase the risk of accidents rural areas. between pedestrians and motorised modes particularly for trips Transport safety between rural settlements where segregated pedestrian routes and lighting are not present. An increase in car trips will also slightly increase the likelihood of accidents. Reductions in service provision particularly in urban areas will reduce Negative impacts particularly for Moderate Negative personal security as more journeys will have to be made by other urban areas. Personal security modes, such as on foot with associated perceived personal security issues.
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 53
This option will not influence pedestrian permeability. No Impact Neutral Permeability
This option will reduce overall public transport provision. This could Potential health benefits for some Neutral have a positive impact on physical fitness where trips are made on individuals within urban areas. foot or by bike instead. However, additional car trips are also likely, Other individuals may experience Physical fitness reducing physical fitness for these individuals who would no longer disbenefits due to additional car walk to or from bus stops. travel or trips not being made any more. This option would have a negative impact on social inclusion as it Negative impacts for urban areas Significant Negative would negatively affect urban areas experiencing high levels of overall suffering deprivation. Social inclusion deprivation. Negative impacts are anticipated particularly for access to retail. Reductions in public transport provision are likely to have a negative Disbenefits particularly for rural Significant Negative Equality, Diversity & impact on specific groups that are more reliant on public transport areas where reliance on public Human Rights including young people, older people and women. Deprived groups transport is higher. are also anticipated to be negatively affected. Public Acceptability: Public consultation indicated that 48% of people did not support this option, a further 42% were unsure. Only 9% of respondents would support this option. Acceptability to other stakeholders: Responses from consultation with bus operators, bus user groups, town and parish councils strongly
Page 72 indicate that this option would not be considered acceptable due to the reduction in service provision anticipated. Technical and operational feasibility: This option would be technically feasible. The operational impacts of the proposed changes could be severe and complex and it is not possible to fully predict how operators would respond to such changes at this stage. Financial affordability and deliverability: As this option would maintain current levels of funding it is financially affordable and deliverable. Risks: Key risks include potential unintended consequences caused by the anticipated loss in service provision and a lack of resources at the local authorities and SWWITCH to resolve these issues.
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 54
Table 8.2: Appraisal of Option 3 Option Description: Scenario 3: Increase LKSG by 50%, while RTSG revenue support is reduced by 60%. Regional Network Strategy Objectives Objective Assessment To support access to employment, health, education, Modelling indicated that this option would reduce levels of service compared to the Do Minimum option retail and leisure - to minimise deprivation and for all destination types, with retail access particularly badly affected and employment, leisure and isolation tourism less badly affected. Moderate Negative To maximise the value of investment, taking into This option to some extent maintains service levels in the urban areas, such as Swansea and Neath account variations in topography, population dispersal Port Talbot, where the largest concentrations of population can benefit from them. It also offers the and journey patterns potential for additional commercial services to be delivered with the extra LKSG funds given to commercial operators. However, the reduction in revenue support could lead to a reduction in service provision for sparsely populated rural areas where tendered services dominate. Neutral To achieve a balance of services across the region This option is likely to reduce service provision in rural areas, with services in urban areas less affected and in some instances increased. This would not maintain a balance of services across the region. Slight Negative To maximise market growth (within the confines of the This option would lead to growth in some urban corridors and potential for expansion of commercial resources available and the balance of services operations. However, the overall impacts are a reduction in the bus market, particularly in rural areas. across the region) Moderate Negative Welsh Impact Areas Criteria Assessment Distribution Significance Economy Page 73 Costs: This option involves maintaining the current level of overall bus Negative impacts would be Slight Negative subsidy, but changing the balance towards LKSG and away from concentrated in areas where revenue support. No capital costs would be involved. greatest use has been made of RTSG subsidy, which are largely The anticipated overall reduction in service levels resulting from this rural. TEE option would negatively affect public transport journey times for users. (Transport Economic Overall Vehicle Operating Costs would reduce due to the reduced Efficiency) number of vehicles serving the area.
Increased LKSG will benefit all categories of service, and should free some funds currently supporting marginal routes to apply to services which would lose RTSG support. This would mitigate, but not negate, the loss of these services. Increasing LKSG and reducing revenue support would tend to Job losses in rural areas, with jobs Moderate Negative preserve service provision in urban areas at the expense of rural moving to better served urban EALI areas. This could lead to companies relocating to these better served areas. (Economic Activity and areas at the expense of rural areas where service levels have Location Impacts) reduced. Also, potential impacts for the retail centres in rural areas, such as market towns due to reduced access for shoppers. Environment The reduction in service provision in many parts of the study area will Small reductions in noise where Neutral Noise lead to a reduction in noise from buses, however some additional service levels reduce. journeys by car are likely to result, with associated noise impacts.
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 55
Reductions in service provision in some areas may reduce local There may be localised benefits in Neutral emissions; particularly relating to NOx and particulates from diesel areas with poor air quality where Local Air Quality bus engines. However, additional car journeys may result. bus provision is anticipated to reduce. The net loss in levels of service provision is likely to result in Across study area Slight Negative Greenhouse Gas additional trips being made by car. This will lead to additional carbon Emissions emissions. This option is likely to reduce the number of buses travelling near to Potential benefits for landscape and Landscape and key landscape and townscape assets particularly in rural parts of the townscape assets in rural areas. Neutral Townscape area. This is likely to slightly reduce visual intrusion in these areas, although an increase in cars may also result. This option is anticipated to have a neutral impact on bio-diversity as No impacts Neutral Bio-diversity no construction is involved. This option is likely to reduce the number of buses travelling near to Potential benefits for heritage sites Neutral key heritage assets particularly in rural parts of the area. This is likely in rural areas. Heritage to slightly reduce visual intrusion in these areas, although an increase in cars may also result. This option is anticipated to have a neutral impact on soil quality as no No impacts Neutral Water Environment construction is involved.
This option is anticipated to have a neutral impact on soil quality as no No impacts Neutral
Page 74 Soils construction is involved. Social A reduction in bus service provision may lead to an increase in the Negative impacts particularly for Slight Negative number of pedestrian trips. This could increase the risk of accidents rural areas. between pedestrians and motorised modes particularly for trips Transport safety between rural settlements where segregated pedestrian routes and lighting are not present. An increase in car trips will also slightly increase the likelihood of accidents. Reductions in service provision particularly in rural areas will reduce Negative impacts particularly for Slight Negative personal security as more journeys will have to be made by other rural areas. Personal security modes, such as on foot with associated perceived personal security issues. This option will not influence pedestrian permeability. No Impact Neutral Permeability
This option will reduce overall public transport provision. This could Potential health benefits for some Neutral have a positive impact on physical fitness where trips are made on individuals within urban areas. Physical fitness foot or by bike instead. However, additional car trips are also likely Other individuals may experience particularly in rural areas, reducing physical fitness for these disbenefits due to additional car individuals. travel. This option would have a negative impact on social inclusion as it Negative impacts for rural areas Significant Negative would negatively affect areas experiencing deprivation due to a lack of suffering deprivation due to poor Social inclusion access to services. Negative impacts are also anticipated particularly access to services. for access to retail.
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 56
Reductions in public transport provision are likely to have a negative Disbenefits particularly for rural Significant Negative Equality, Diversity & impact on groups that are more reliant on public transport including areas where reliance on public Human Rights young people, older people and women. Deprived groups are also transport is higher. anticipated to be negatively affected. Public Acceptability: Public consultation indicated that 50% of people did not support this option, a further 41% were unsure. Only 9% of respondents would support this option. Acceptability to other stakeholders: Responses from consultation with bus operators, bus user groups, town and parish councils strongly indicate that this option would not be considered acceptable due to the reduction in service provision anticipated. Technical and operational feasibility: This option would be technically feasible. The operational impacts of the proposed changes could be severe and it is not possible to fully predict how operators would respond to such changes at this stage. Financial affordability and deliverability: As this option would maintain current levels of funding it is financially affordable and deliverable. Risks: Key risks include potential unintended consequences caused by the anticipated loss in service provision.
Page 75
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 57
8.3 Justification for Preferred Option
The appraisal of Options 2 and 3 in tables 8.1 and 8.2 above indicates that neither of these options contributes positively to the identified RNS objectives. Additionally both options have neutral or negative consequences across the majority of the Economic, Environmental and Social appraisal criteria. In almost all cases both options are considered worse than continuation of the current arrangements (Option 1). Table 8.3 provides an overview of the relative performance of each of the options. This is also backed up by the views expressed by the vast majority of consultation respondents, 79% supporting the continuation of the current funding mechanism, with only 9% supporting either of the alternatives. Therefore our preferred option is to maintain the current funding arrangements, at least in the short term. The next section of the report will outline our final strategy and the changes we propose to make to build upon current funding arrangements and seek to maximise the current network in line with the stated RNS objectives.
Page 76
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 58
Table 8.3 – Comparison of Option Scores Appraisal Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 To support access to employment, health, education, retail and leisure - 0 -3 -2 to minimise deprivation and isolation To maximise the value of investment, taking into account variations in 0 -1 0 topography, population dispersal and journey patterns To achieve a balance of services across the region 0 0 -1 Objectives To maximise market growth (within the confines of the resources
Transport Planning 0 -2 -2 available and the balance of services across the region) Transport Economic Efficiency 0 -2 -1 omy
Econ Economic Activity and Locational Impacts 0 -1 -2 Noise 0 0 0 Local Air Quality 0 0 0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 -1 -1 Page 77 Landscape and Townscape 0 0 0 Bio-diversity 0 0 0
Environment Heritage 0 0 0 Water Environment 0 0 0 Soils 0 0 0 Transport Safety 0 -1 -1 Personal Security 0 -2 -1 Permeability 0 0 0 Physical Fitness 0 0 0 Society Social Inclusion 0 -3 -3 Equality, Diversity and Human Rights 0 -3 -3 Public Acceptability 3 -3 -3 ity Acce
ptabil Stakeholder Acceptability 3 -3 -3 Total Score 6 -25 -23
9 The Final Strategy
Page 78
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 60
9 The Final Strategy
9.1 Introduction
The Regional Network Strategy aims to support the achievement of the objectives of the Regional Transport Plan and of SWWITCH’s constituent authorities. However, it is recognised that the background is uncertain and volatile, particularly in terms of funding; the RNS itself must therefore remain flexible and able to respond to new obstacles and opportunities. It is anticipated that public revenue funding towards buses will decline further in the immediate future, notably through: · Lower settlements for local authorities from Welsh Government, which will impact disproportionately on ‘unprotected’ services such as subsidised bus services; and · A reduction in the rate at which bus operators are reimbursed for free concessionary travel by older and disabled people. The latter has particular potential for damage to the Welsh bus network, since it would affect the income for an average of 34% of passengers on all services, including those run commercially. A further uncertainty is that the actual amount of RTSG will be unknown until late in the budgeting process, making it very difficult for SWWITCH to plan for the forthcoming financial year. Bus and CT operations in many parts of the SWWITCH area are fragile, and operators need to deploy their resources (vehicles, depots and staff) as efficiently as possible. Any change in funding will impact on viability and, once it is clear that a service will cease to be economically viable, the operator has little choice but to reduce or withdraw it as soon as possible, usually giving just 8 weeks’ notice. Uncertainty and short-notice change also undermine operators’ ability to rationally plan both their services and their investment; the latter is critical at present, as the 2015-2017 deadlines loom for ‘large bus’ services to be entirely operated by vehicles compliant with the PSV Accessibility Regulations, requiring replacement of a significant proportion of some SWWITCH area fleets. Moreover, if local authorities are forced into hasty responses to knee-jerk decisions by operators, it is very unlikely that the results will be optimal; authorities need time to assess, plan for and procure appropriate services on a rational basis. This could result in bus services being withdrawn, with a gap before subsidised replacements begin. This would inconvenience and deter passengers, undermine longer-term confidence in these services and bus travel as a whole and result in poor value for money. Sufficient time will have to be allowed for operators and authorities to make considered decisions about their responses to any significant funding changes, and for passengers to be adequately consulted and informed in advance – processes which may take up to 12 months. Within these constraints, however, the RNS is intended to help guide the decisions of SWWITCH and its members so as to offer some stability to bus and CT services, minimise adverse effects on them, and maximise their contributions to regional objectives, which are: · To support access to employment, health, education, retail and leisure, to minimise deprivation and isolation; · To maximise the value of investment, taking into account variations in topography, population dispersal and journey patterns; · To achieve a balance of services across the region; · To maximise market growth (within the confines of the resources available and the balance of services across the region); and · To include key quality outcomes to meet the requirements of RTSG from April 2014. Local communities and politicians also need time to absorb the detail of any significant service changes which result from alterations to or reductions in the funds available. Failure to achieve buy-in to, or at least acceptance of, the consequences of any changes, might substantially damage the effectiveness and stability of the RNS.
Page 79
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 61
The RNS therefore aims, as far as possible, to take a gradual, evolutionary approach to change.
9.2 Regional Transport Services Grant
SWWITCH intends to continue distributing RTSG in a similar way to that adopted in 2013/14, and in broadly similar proportions as between revenue support and LKSG, and between local bus and CT services. This is intended to provide an element of stability for operators and planners, and to allow for proper joint assessment of opportunities for more co-ordinated provision of services across the public, community and health transport sectors (see below). This strategy will be subject to revision if there is a major change in the amount of RTSG allocated by the Welsh Government.
9.3 RTSG Revenue Support
Revenue support to local bus services will continue to be provided, as a similar proportion of total RTSG as in 2013/14. The amount will not be known until the annual allocation is confirmed by Welsh Government. It is recognised that the balance between services subsidised through RTSG and those subsidised from councils’ core funds will alter over time, as individual authorities make decisions about their own budgets and prioritising the needs for different services. In the event that the demand for subsidy exceeds the available budget, or appears likely to do so, SWWITCH may prioritise and direct the allocation of RTSG funding to services on the basis of the RNS objectives and relative improvement (or reduction in degradation) of accessibility, in accordance with its agreed strategies and plans. However, contracts will continue normally to be tendered and managed by individual local authorities, working in conjunction with SWWITCH and each other.
9.4 Live Kilometres Support Grant
LKSG will continue to be paid to all local bus services, to operators who accept the terms and conditions of the LKSG scheme. The rate of payment will depend on compliance with Quality Outcomes as set out in the following section. The process will be similar to that adopted for 2013/14, with quarterly advance payments and annual reconciliation to the budgeted figure. The budget will depend on the RTSG allocation from Welsh Government, while the rates payable will also depend on the level of bus service provision during the relevant year. It is not proposed to differentiate rates between different areas or types of registered local bus service.
9.5 Quality Outcome assurance
New conditions will be applied to the partial payment of LKSG for registered local bus services related to quality outcomes as set out below. Note that both the mandatory and discretionary elements of Quality Outcomes will be subject to revision in the light of final guidance from the Welsh Government. A two-tier system of payments will be implemented from April 2014. The upper rate will be paid only for those services covered by a Quality Standards Agreement (QSA) between SWWITCH and the operator; all kilometres run on other services, or on services which fail to comply with the terms of a QSA, will be paid at the lower rate.
Page 80
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 62
The content of the QSA will be variable to reflect local circumstances, but all will contain the following mandatory elements: · Reliability and Punctuality – The service will operate according to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s current guideline on punctuality (at present 95% of journeys running no more than 1 minute early or 5 minutes late), and with no more than 1% of scheduled live kilometres lost for reasons within the operator’s control. · Cleanliness – All vehicles used on the service will be well presented and swept out on every day of operation, washed externally on at least every second day, and given an interior deep clean at intervals of no more than eight weeks. · Passenger feedback – All vehicles used on the service will clearly display contact details for the operator to receive comments or complaints by post, telephone and electronic means, and contact details for the relevant complaints appeals body. The operator must apply a complaints handling policy agreed with SWWITCH. For appropriate services – generally those which are more commercially robust, or where quality enhancements are supported by public funding – an enhanced QSA may be required by SWWITCH. It is intended that such QSAs will be developed and implemented progressively after April 2014. These QSAs will contain additional or more stringent conditions, which might include items selected from such elements as enhanced reliability targets, application of a Passengers’ Charter, additional security or information systems or fare discounts for young people.
9.6 Community Transport services
It is intended to allocate a similar proportion of RTSG to CT services as in 2013/14. This will be split between three streams, as follows: · Live Kilometres Support Grant, based on the process applied in 2013/14, at a rate commensurate with the available budget and activity levels. · Grant support to CT organisations, continuing the established basis. · Contractual arrangements It is intended that Quality Outcome criteria will be applied to part of the LKSG funding for CT in a similar way to that for registered local bus services. However, SWWITCH considers that the outcomes applicable to CT operations and their metrics are not adequately defined for application in 2014/15, when further work will be necessary to devise, consult on and refine these. It is therefore expected that such criteria will be published during 2014, and applied from April 2015. CT will be a key component in public transport, particularly in rural areas and for people who are unable to use conventional buses. Deciding which CT schemes are prioritised, and procuring / providing support for CT, involves tackling a different set of issues from deciding on support for buses. CT is by its very nature unconventional, varied and frequently dependent on specific local characteristics (especially the availability of interested and capable volunteers). The pattern of CT provision is therefore uneven, tailored to local circumstances and unlikely to match demand. CT operations are also more fragile than commercial operators, partly because they are often strongly tied to a particular locality, and partly because of their non-competitive nature – thus, a small change in a block grant can have a disproportionate impact on a group’s viability. These factors dictate that reconfiguring CT funding is a time- consuming process, requiring delicate decisions and much input from senior officers. SWWITCH will continue to review options for further support and capacity for the sector, complementing and supporting the work done by existing CT development officers within local authorities and the Community Transport Association.
Page 81
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 63
9.7 Planning for future services
SWWITCH believes that a once-in-a-generation opportunity currently exists to achieve mutually beneficial co- ordination of passenger transport between the commercial, voluntary, local authority and health sectors, building in particular on the Welsh Government’s review of the role and organisation of the Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust (WAST). Although the WAST review was led by concerns over its emergency service, the outcomes will extend to the non- emergency patient transport (or Patient Care Service, PCS), with its own set of characteristics which relate much more closely to current CT, local authority and public transport requirements. Responsibility for commissioning PCS will in future lie with the Local Heath Boards, which currently have little expertise or capability in this field. However, coinciding with increased emphasis on partnership working between NHS Wales and local authorities, who are well placed to provide such expertise, this creates the opportunity to re-cast PCS provision so that it is both better co- ordinated with other local transport, and better meets patients’ needs. Building on the links and initiatives already established with the two Health Boards covering the SWWITCH area (Abertawe Bro Morgannwg and Hywel Dda), SWWITCH will continue to explore the potential for means of achieving efficient co-ordination (not only in transport operation, but also in single-point access to transport for health) and shared service commissioning. Providing this coordination at the regional level is more appropriate than through individual local authorities, reflecting the preference of the Health Boards from consultation. The objective will be to move towards an integrated transport booking and provision service for all needs, including health, funded from pooled resources. While this will be of particular relevance to deployment of CT, local authority and WAST resources, the mainstream public transport network will also be involved, not least for NHS staff movements – which will outnumber patient journeys five to one at a typical general hospital.
Page 82
10 Conclusions
Page 83
AECOM SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy: Final Strategy 65
10 Conclusions
10.1 Introduction
This report provides an overview of the work undertaken to develop a Regional Network Strategy for the bus and community transport network in the SWWITCH region following the Welsh Government’s recent restructuring of the previous public funding arrangements for buses and transfer of funding control to the Regional Consortia which was introduced in April 2013. This document outlines the process that has been followed to identify and shape a pragmatic and viable strategy which considers the wider changes ongoing within the bus industry and makes use of considerable input from key stakeholders. Potential strategy options have been identified and consultation has been undertaken on these options. An appraisal process considering the likely costs and benefits in economic, environmental and social terms has also been undertaken to establish the most appropriate final strategy approach. The approach used to distribution Regional Transport Services Grant (RTSG) funds was identified as the central additional power given to SWWITCH by the Welsh Government with which it can seek to influence the bus network in the area. A financial model has been created to assess the likely impacts of different financing arrangements and to understand the likely impacts of these geographically. Different scenarios have been considered in relation to altering the current balance between Live Kilometer Support Grant (LKSG) and Revenue Support to positively influence the SWWITCH Regional Network Strategy objectives. Our assessment of these alternatives has indicated that these alternative approaches have the potential to have significant negative consequences in terms of their impacts on service provision when compared to the current approach. Consultation has also indicated strong opposition to changing current financing arrangements, especially in an environment with significant financial uncertainty, for example relating to the current review of concessionary fares reimbursement. Therefore, SWWITCH propose to provide operators and public transport users with as much stability as possible by maintaining current funding arrangements in terms of Revenue Support and LKSG and the current balance of funds currently provided to bus and community transport operators. The Strategy also proposes a series of quality outcomes for April 2014 relating to reliability, punctuality, cleanliness and passenger feedback and these, along with other potential measures which could be implemented after this date, will be used to determine the rate of LKSG funds provided to operators to help encourage improvements in service quality throughout the SWWITCH region. These will apply to bus and community transport services, although in different forms, and further work will be required to refine and calibrate these measures in both fields. Community transport plays an important role in meeting the transport needs of the area, and the Consortium will continue to develop its links with and support to the sector. SWWITCH is also committed to working with the Local Health Boards to achieve mutually beneficial co-ordination of passenger transport between the commercial, voluntary, local authority and health sectors to better meet the needs of both patients and NHS staff. This will build on the successful co-ordination initiatives piloted between Hywel Dda Health Board and councils in Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, which have demonstrated some of the benefits to be achieved from the pooling of resources across the local authority and NHS divide.
Page 84
Agenda Item 6
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
SWWITCH Walking and Cycling Group
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 It will be recalled that SWWITCH put forward Walking & Cycling as one of the Collaboration projects under the Compact. Significant work was undertaken by Officers across the four Councils, in partnership with key external partners, on developing a Strategic Outline Business Case.
1.2 Although the collaboration agenda in transport is no longer being actively pursued by the Welsh Government, the SWWITCH Walking & Cycling Group has continued to meet and work together to identify gaps in networks and to examine processes for prioritising future scheme development.
1.3 This paper provides an update on the work of the group to date and seeks endorsement for the establishment of a formal sub Group, the SWWITCH Walking & Cycling Group.
2.0 WALKING & CYCLING GROUP REVIEW
2.1 A detailed review of Walking & Cycling in the region was carried out over the period May 2012 to May 2013. That review was based on the Outline Business Case (which arose as part of the Collaboration project) and is attached as Appendix A to this paper.
2.2 The “Quick Wins” proposed in the OBC, and summarised on page 1 of Appendix A were achieved, except to note that the mapping of processes for Safer Routes was superseded by the project terms being broadened to examine walking & cycling in the round.
2.3 Specific tangible outcomes achieved on “Quick Wins” were:
• A regional map of walking & cycling routes has been produced • Support was provided by the Group to the 13/14 SWWITCH Delivery Plan • The group were able to advise on contribution toward consultations on the Active Travel Bill • Proposals for a SWWITCH prioritisation process are being developed • A view on baseline data has been produced • A view on standards has been taken, with recommendations provided
2.4 Perhaps most significant has been the actual working of the group itself and lessons learned from that, particularly the cross boundary working, and collaboration. This is reflected in the recommendations which form part of the report. These address the second element of the project itself that is to investigate and recommend longer term improvements. The recommendations are as follows:
Page 85
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
• Recommendations 1: SWWITCH supports the establishment of the national strategic group for Walking & Cycling, whose remit would be to coordinate and develop Active Travel • Recommendation 2: Establish clear lines of communication and responsibilities within local authorities, based on the direction of the strategic and regional groups • Recommendation 3: Develop Regional mapping to produce a published regional map, and oversee its future development • Recommendation 4: Share information of network delivery plan development: report to Joint Committee • Recommendation 5: The SWWITCH Walking Group should continue to work together to further develop the regional delivery plan for walking & cycling • Recommendation 6: Provide recommendations for a regional prioritisation tool for walking & cycling projects • Recommendation 7: Establish procedures and links between the Walking & Cycling group and Programme Management Group, to manage the Delivery Plan implementation • Recommendation 8: The Walking & cycling group should take ownership of the usage data and monitor as part of the group’s regular work. This could also feed into the WG Walking & Cycling Group, and be of use to monitor national delivery • Recommendation 9: Expand review of current training programme to incorporate best practice in terms of behaviour change / travel planning in line with Smarter Choices • Recommendation 10: Smarter Choices should form part of future project development • Recommendation 11: Develop regional strategy to deliver the WG delivery plan for walking & cycling • Recommendation 12: The walking & cycling group could provide the consortia representation on an all-Wales strategic delivery group. • Recommendation 13: Adopt the Cardiff Cycle Design Guide as a starting to harmonise design standards across the region • Recommendation 14: Review of the design guidance, particularly in relation to more rural areas • Recommendation 15: Continue to adopt a communication plan for staff and key stakeholders • Recommendation 16: Hold a national workshop to roll out the outcomes from this project.
2.5 The review was considered and approved by Management Group earlier this year. The potential prioritisation process was approved in principle only by Management Group subject to further examination of the impacts of the process.
Page 86
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
2.6 In light of the Active Travel Bill requirements (to work consultatively to map and seek continuous improvement to walking and cycling routes) and the good progress made to date by the Walking and Cycling Group it would be appropriate to recognise the work of the Group to date and formally accept the Group as a sub group within the “SWWITCH Family”.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 It is RECOMMENDED that:
I. Joint Committee notes the work of the Walking & Cycling Group to date and supports the recommendations of the Walking & cycling Group report II. A SWWITCH Walking & Cycling Group is formally established
Page 87
SWWITCH COLLABORATION PROJECT - WALKING & CYCLING
REPORT OF THE SWWITCH WALKING & CYCLING GROUP
Page 88 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 There are a number of national and regional strategic objectives relating to walking and cycling. There are a number of benefits that can potentially be realised by successful implementation of walking and cycling projects. There is a strong desire by government and local authorities to achieve benefits through collaborative working.
1.2 This project has been instigated by the SWWITCH Consortium to:
• Achieve “quick wins” by: o reviewing governance models, identifying any best practice, and recommending a way forward; o reviewing the structure of how walking & cycling is delivered; o for safe routes in particular, process mapping of existing bid processes; o sharing and coordinating information on service delivery – in conjunction with Programme Management Group; o reviewing outcomes, to establish clear and meaningful measures to determine success; o and Communication plan to staff in the 4 authorities • Investigate and recommend longer term improvements (subject to case being proven), which may include: o implementation of governance model; o coordination of implementation of regional policy (including review of outcomes and measuring these); o common and consistent approach to standards setting; sharing of and setting guidance on standards of best practice; o and coordination of service delivery, particularly in relation to sensible sharing of resources and monitoring of budget spends across the region..
1.3 This report provides further information on the “Quick Wins” achieved, and the recommendations for taking the project forward.
2 THE REASON FOR CHANGE 2.1 Walking and cycling can improve health and safety through increasing physical activity, and reducing the impact of road transport which has the potential for negative impacts due to accidents and through air and noise pollution. There are also benefits associated with social inclusion and as an economic driver in terms of tourism. Transportation costs can also be lower. The Welsh Government’s overarching aim is to encourage more people to walk and cycle more safely and more often. Substantial funding has been made available for walking & cycling and Welsh Government and Local Authorities are promoting the development of collaborative relationships, through The Compact. Working on this premise, therefore, this project seeks to review existing arrangements and implement any improvements that are identified
3 TERMS OF REFERENCE / SCOPE 3.1 The objective of the project is to improve delivery and efficiency of walking & cycling planning and implementation, and clarify the aspects of service provision to
Page 89 be maintained or improved if they were delivered at a national, regional or local level.
3.2 The main items of scope (taken from the project brief) are: • identify at which level (national, regional, local) walking & cycling could best be provided • identify and quantify any quick wins (Aug 12 – Mar 13) • Identify any longer term efficiencies • (If appropriate) develop an action plan to ensure effective change management to secure service improvement/savings takes place.
3.3 The outline Business Case for this stage of the project and the project brief are contained in Appendix 1.
4 THE REVIEW GROUP & MEETINGS 4.1 The Review Group comprises of local authority representatives from each Council in the SWWITCH area, supported with input from the Welsh Government and Sustrans, as follows: Darren Thomas SWWITCH Consortium / PembsCC (Chair) Simon Charles Carmarthenshire County Council Andrea Jones Carmarthenshire County Council Jeff Green City & County of Swansea Ben George City & County of Swansea Joy Smith Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Geoff Marquis Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Francis Johns Pembrokeshire County Council Sue Lewis Pembrokeshire County Council Meryl James Welsh Government Lee Waters Sustrans (until April 2013), Jane Lorimar, Sustrans (from May 2013)
4.2 The Review Group met on a number of occasions between March and May 2013.
5 STAGE 1: THE QUICK WINS – PROGRESS & OUTCOMES 5.1 Governance Arrangements
The Governance arrangements were considered in the context of the current SWWITCH controls. The proposed Governance arrangement for the Walking & Cycling group is shown below.
Figure 1: proposed Governance Structure for SWWITCH Walking & Cycling Group.
Page 90 The structure above recommends the establishment of a strategic walking & cycling group, overseen by WG, with membership comprising the Consortia, and other relevant key stakeholders, such as Sustrans. The remit of the strategic group would be to ensure that walking & cycling interventions are coordinated, collaborative, best practice and contributing to development of the Active travel approach, in line with the objectives of WG.
Recommendations 1: SWWITCH supports the establishment of the national strategic group for Walking & Cycling, whose remit would be to coordinate and develop Active Travel.
The discussions on governance did raise some issues in relation to how Walking & Cycling may be directed and managed within an authority or consortia. It became clear during the discussions that walking & cycling is potentially fragmented across many service delivery areas – e.g.: rights of way, sustainable transport, maintenance, etc. Sustrans has expressed a strong opinion that a structure which unified the delivery of walking & cycling may be a stronger platform to realise the aspirations for active travel in the future. However, whilst appreciative of the aspiration, the group felt on balance that this was not achievable at this phase of the project. For example: elements of walking and cycling are currently dealt with by statutory rights of way officers, and would likely remain the case; the Active Travel Bill is awaiting determination, and the final shape of this, together with any guidance, will help inform future provision. It was felt the representatives around the table were empowered by their authorities to be represented at SWWITCH and coordinate current efforts and progress on walking & cycling, which reflect a practical and achievable outcome at this stage.
Recommendation 2: Establish clear lines of communication and responsibilities within local authorities, based on the direction of the strategic and regional groups.
5.2 How Walking & Cycling is delivered in SWWITCH This turned out to be a significant and difficult item of work. The initial aspiration was to focus on what walking and cycling infrastructure is provided across the region, and to review linkages and missing links, with a view to developing a collaborative and coordinated approach to the network.
Some examples in individual authority good practice were tabled: Swansea provided their “Swansea Cycle Map”, and NPT provided a comprehensive mapping that was prepared as part of their LDP production process. However, current mapping is inconsistent, with some plans being for public use while others are of a more technical nature. After some iterations, each authority provided data on the Shared Use Path networks in their area, which was collated on GIS and provided as a coordinated regional map. Learning points uncovered during this exercise were: definition of what to include on the mapping is important to avoid abortive work; identification of a lead officer for GIS is useful early on; as a starter it is better to provide a basic level of entry data, and work up, rather than try and resolve every issue at the start.
This work was being carried out at the same time as consultation on and introduction of a new Active Travel Wales Bill. To some degree, therefore, the
Page 91 Group were keeping an eye on the development of this workplan area, in order to ensure consistency, but also to avoid abortive work.
The compilation of a regional map has been useful in terms of uncovering the following issues: • Defining walking & cycling routes • Consistency across regional boundaries • Identification of potential missing links • Improvement in data and information • Awareness of emerging Active Travel Bill measures
It is proposed to take forward the development of the above issues
Recommendation 3: Develop Regional mapping to produce a published regional map, and oversee its future development.
Recommendation 4: Share information of network delivery plan development: report to Joint Committee.
5.3 Overlaps with Safer Routes in Communities The original intention was to process map existing bid processes in each authority, agree a common approach based on best practice identified and agree common information inclusion for bid document. However, there was some delay in receiving the Safer Routes guidance. In addition, the focus of this project developed into emphasis on wider regional working on walking & cycling rather than focus on Safer Routes. Further, it is understood that the bid process is likely to change for 14/15 year, so any development work is likely to have minimal impact.
Notwithstanding the feedback on process described above, the principle of Safer Routes remains as an important theme for consideration. Safer Routes are defined as approaches “to improve accessibility, safety and to encourage walking and cycling within communities”. The recently published “2011 Road Casualties Wales” statistics from the Welsh Government Statistical Directorate highlight pedal cyclist casualties as being a significant component of all road casualties in Wales. In 20011 they represented 9% of Filled Seriously Injured (KSI) road traffic casualties and 5% of slight casualties in Wales.
5.4 Project Delivery The focus on this workstream was to share and coordinate information on service delivery, and to consider links with programme management processes, in order to strengthen the application of walking and cycling infrastructure across the region. The establishment of this group is a significant step forward in its own right to collate programmes of work from each authority. It is proposed that the group will continue to develop this work, based on the detailed business case.
The list of projects has uncovered the following: • Different approaches to production of work programmes. • Lack of a prioritisation process in order to identify precedence • No consistent approach to monitoring and evaluating outcomes.
Page 92 The latter is of particular concern, given that Welsh Government promote an evidence led and clearly prioritised approach when it comes to allocation of funding. As a result, some initial consideration has been given to a prioritisation process. The SEWTA prioritisation tool has been obtained, and some trial work has been undertaken to utilise a modified mechanism which is based upon this methodology. This needs to be taken forward as part of the detailed business case, in order to finalise a comprehensive regional working model for programme prioritisation.
The 2103/14 Delivery Plan contains a requirement to contain a minimum 20% of funding toward Active Travel scheme. The Walking & Cycling Group was not sufficiently developed to be able to fully contribute toward this process at this stage, but the work to date was of some help in this process, and there have been some learning points on this, in terms of the need for robust processes and consideration to a prioritisation process to provide some evidence bases for recommendations to the Programme Management group. As a consequence, there is recognition that the project delivery work will need to be reported to the SWWITCH Programme Management Group, and the Walking & Cycling Group will therefore need to develop and implement appropriate arrangements for management and reporting on delivery.
Recommendation 5: The SWWITCH Walking Group should continue to work together to further develop the regional delivery plan for walking & cycling.
Recommendation 6: Provide recommendations for a regional prioritisation tool for walking & cycling projects.
Recommendation 7: Establish procedures and links between the Walking & Cycling group and Programme Management Group, to manage the Delivery Plan implementation.
5.5 Baseline Data / Monitoring This again proved to be a more difficult “quick win” that initially envisaged. The baseline data should provide data about existing walking and cycling usage, and for comparison for assessing future program impact. The baseline data collection therefore concentrated on existing usage figures for the shared use path network.
The following sources of data were found: a) SWWITCH APR quarterly updates, based on automatic count data. b) Count data from discrete sites within local authority boundaries. c) In some cases SUSTRANS Road Survey User Intercept Reports.
The issues surrounding this were found to be: • Data reporting from individual authorities is in different formats (albeit collated in a single format for the SWWITCH quarterly reporting). • Automatic counters not installed as standard in W&C or Safe Routes schemes • Not all authorities provide automatic count data. • The data is not being proactively used on a regional basis to manage the Delivery Plan or program.
Page 93 • There is limited qualitative analysis of the current baseline data, i.e.: what is it telling us, and how could it shape future provision.
One of the problems identified was the lack of resource to carry out statistical analyses within the Consortia. SUSTRAN’s do have some such capability, and they have provided a summary of the SWWITCH baseline data for the project. Data from 46 count sites from across the SWWITCH region has been examined and the average daily count by year and County has been calculated. There appear to be some anomalous readings in this data, but excluding these, a summary of the average daily count data by year for each authority is shown in the table below and graphically on the figure following.
Figure 3: SWWITCH Baseline data summary
The data summary appears to show that there has been a sustained increase in walking & cycling activity across each of the 4 authorities in the last 7 years, which is encouraging. However, some caution is needed, since, although based on data from across 46 sites, there are some anomalies (the major one’s not taken into account). Nevertheless, this approach does appear to provide some tangible evidence and summary of activity.
Recommendation 8: The Walking & cycling group should take ownership of the usage data and monitor as part of the group’s regular work. This could also feed into the WG Walking & Cycling Group, and be of use to monitor national delivery.
Page 94 5.6 Training A review of cycle training provision was undertaken as part of the project cycling review that had been produced. It is proposed to expand on the walking and cycling training, and including the wider Smarter Choices agenda. Research has shown that 60% of individuals undergoing cycle training go on to increase their cycling levels. . Recommendation 9: Expand review of current training programme to incorporate best practice in terms of behaviour change / travel planning in line with Smarter Choices.
As part of the review work, SUSTRANS highlighted training available on cycle standards, and this is being followed up in terms of a regional training workshop.
5.7 Smarter Choices The construction of routes is necessary but not sufficient on its own to achieve large changes in travel behaviour change. The frequently cited barrier to travel change is people’s perceptions, be this knowledge of available routes, or a belief that a car journey is both faster and easier than other modes (evidence shows people overestimate public transport journey time, and underestimate car journey times). In addition to infrastructure the evidence shows an allied and coordinated range of ‘softer measures’ or Smarter Choices initiatives are required to increase levels of walking and cycling.
Smarter Choices refers to a variety of behavioral methods and initiatives which reduce the negative impacts of car travel on congestion, carbon emissions, the environment and health. It embraces many of the supporting factors which influence travel choice such as awareness of public transport alternatives, cycling and walking route information together with directly informing people about alternative modes of travel through personalized travel planning schemes. The discussions of the group to date focused on establishing basic data and baseline monitoring information, together with some consideration of the delivery program. Smarter choices were not part of the “Quick Wins” project. However, it is apparent that future consideration of Smarter Choices should form part of future project development. It is important to note that in order to achieve the best outcomes from any infrastructure scheme, an allied behavior change programme is likely to result in greater modal shift.
Some examples of effective smarter choices interventions: • Personalized Travel Planning has been shown to be effective in numerous areas of the UK, and when allied to infrastructure changes have consistently shown reductions in car use by 8-10%. The interim results of PTP in North Cardiff were an 8% reduction in car use, and a shift towards all other sustainable modes, including a tripling of cycling. • Behavior change programmes in schools, such as the Sustrans Bike It project. This has typically been shown to triple the number of children cycling to school, and continue to do so post intervention. • Workplace and School Travel Planning is shown to encourage modal shift in travel habits. This approach typically increases active travel, through an overarching travel strategy (see this article)
Page 95 • Cycle Training (as outlined in 5.6) are an effective part of a suite of measures targeted at behavior change.
Recommendation 10: Smarter Choices should form part of future project development.
5.8 Coordination of regional policy The following documents were reviewed:
• Walking and Cycling Action Plan for Wales 2009 – 2013: this was noted to be informative, but lacked robust monitoring in its implementation. It is in the process of being reviewed and refreshed by the WG • SWWITCH Regional Transport Plan – Walking & Cycling Strategy 2010 – 15: this is brief and descriptive. • SWWITCH Walking and Cycling Strategy: this was noted to be dated and little referenced. It could be updated in light of current approach.
The Group’s review work on this Quick Wins project was being carried out at the same time as development work for the proposed Active Travel Bill. The Group were able to contribute toward the SWWITCH response on the Bill consultation.
The Group considered that there is opportunity to be able to provide Consortia input into a national strategic delivery group.
Recommendation 11: Develop regional strategy to deliver the WG delivery plan for walking & cycling.
Recommendation 12: The walking & cycling group could provide the consortia representation on an all-Wales strategic delivery group.
5.9 Standard setting There are currently no regional design guidance documents covering the SWWITCH area. However, Cardiff County Council has already produced a “Cardiff Cycle Design Guide”. In principle the Group felt this was a good starting point for starting to harmonise design and recommend it be adopted as an initial approach to design guidance. This will need to be considered in more detail in the detailed business case, in particular a review of design guidance affecting more rural areas.
Recommendation 13: Adopt the Cardiff Cycle Design Guide as a starting to harmonise design standards across the region.
Recommendation 14: Review of the design guidance, particularly in relation to more rural areas.
5.10 Communication plan The importance of keeping staff within the local authorities and key stakeholders was recognised. Information from the Group was circulated, and feedback was considered at each meeting. There was agreement that the establishment of this group has already gone a long way to improving cross boundary working, collaboration and future regionalisation agenda.
Page 96 This will need to be developed during the detailed business case, including consideration to holding a regional workshop to expand the sharing of project information. In addition, consideration could be given to holding a national workshop to share the outcomes from this project with the other Consortia.
Recommendation 15: Continue to adopt a communication plan for staff and key stakeholders.
Recommendation 16: Hold a national workshop to roll out the outcomes from this project.
6 STAGE 2: PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT – LONGER TERM 6.1 The “Quick Wins” project works has identified a number of longer term recommendations / proposals, which will form the basis of the Business Plan for taking the project forward.
6.2 Timescales and milestones are proposed as follows.
Activity Milestone Deadline
1. SWWITCH supports the establishment of Confirm to WG SWWITCH’s Aug 2013 the national strategic group for Walking & support for an all-Wales group to Cycling, whose remit would be to coordinate and develop Active coordinate and develop Active Travel Travel. 2. Establish clear lines of communication Establishment of a regional Aug 2013 and responsibilities within local walking & cycling group which will authorities, based on the direction of the assume responsibility for the strategic and regional groups coordination and collaboration on such matters. 3. Develop Regional mapping to produce a Develop the draft map into a Public map – Oct 2013 published regional map, and oversee its publicly issued map. future development. 4. Share information of network delivery Review work programme Review work plan development: report to Joint information. programme – to tie in Committee. with Delivery Plan, incl. regular reporting to Mngt Grp & JMC 5. The SWWITCH Walking Group should Establishment of a regional Aug 2013 continue to work together to further walking & cycling group which will develop the regional delivery plan for assume responsibility for the walking & cycling coordination and collaboration on such matters. 6. Provide recommendations for a regional Regional prioritisation tool For SWWITCH prioritisation tool for walking & cycling Management Group of projects 25 Oct 2013 7. Establish procedures and links between Clear process defined for Dec 2013 the Walking & Cycling group and reporting processes between Programme Management Group, to groups. manage the Delivery Plan implementation 8. The Walking & cycling group should take Review baseline data summary & Dec 2013 ownership of the usage data and monitor confirm recommendations for as part of the group’s regular work. This future data analyses could also feed into the WG Walking & Cycling Group, and be of use to monitor national delivery 9. Expand review of current training Establish work programme & Establish programme –
Page 97 programme to incorporate best practice review regularly. by Oct 2013. in terms of behaviour change / travel Review Quarterly. planning in line with Smarter Choices 10. Smarter Choices should form part of Standing agenda item on the work Review Quarterly. future project development programme of the Group & provide updates. 11. Develop regional strategy to deliver the Dependant on WG guidance in Await WG guidance. WG delivery plan for walking & cycling first instance. Review quarterly. 12. The walking & cycling group could Subject to WG setting up an all- Await WG guidance. provide the consortia representation on Wales group; SWWITCH to Review quarterly. an all-Wales strategic delivery group nominate an officer. 13. Adopt the Cardiff Cycle Design Guide as Adopt the Guide Aug 2013 a starting to harmonise design standards across the region 14. Review of the design guidance, Establish a sub-group to review & March 2014 particularly in relation to more rural areas report. 15. Continue to adopt a communication plan Circulate Group notes. Review annually. for staff and key stakeholders Consider holding a SWWITCH seminar. 16. Hold a national workshop to roll out the Establish workshop Oct 2013. outcomes from this project
7 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 The project identified clear proposals for a national and regional governance model. A national strategic walking and cycling delivery group is recommended should be established. It is recommended that this has representation from all the Consortia, with Consortia establishing regional groups to coordinate walking & cycling provision.
7.2 A number of quick wins were successfully achieved: regional mapping, work programme, baseline data and standard setting. However it is recognised that much of this work is a starting point for more detailed analysis and development of more robust regional processes and procedures.
7.3 The project has identified a number of recommendations for future work, which are recommended to be taken forward in the detailed business case.
8 NEXT STEPS 8.1 This report completes the initial work of the Review Group. SWWITCH Management Group is now responsible for reviewing this document and approving the way forward.
8.2 Subject to the decisions, the Group will continue to meet and work during the rest of the current financial year and into 2013-14 to refine proposals.
Page 98 Agenda Item 7
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
SWWITCH Programme Management
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Joint Committee will be aware that in 2013/14 the total Regional Transport Consortia Grant (RTCG) for SWWITCH was £6.882m comprising :
• RTP capital -£5.239m • RTP revenue - £0.205m • RS capital - £0.959m • RS revenue 0 £0.479m
1.2 The delivery of the RTCG is overseen by the Programme Management Group which reports monthly to SWWITCH Management Group and provides a quarterly update to Joint Committee.
1.3 This report provides an update on progress on spend and delivery of the RTCG to date and looks forward to the 2014/15 financial year.
2.0 RTCG PROGRESS IN 2013/14
2.1 At the end of October (month seven of the financial year), SWWITCH expenditure was as shown in Table One below.
Table One – RTCG Spend up to the end of October 2013 Element of RTCG Profiled spend Actual spend % of allocation (£k) (£k) remaining RTP capital 1,958 1,508 72% RTP revenue 95 92 45% RS capital 331 287 71% RS revenue 257 245 49% Total 2,641 2,132 69%
2.2 The progress against profile relates to the original profile for projects as submitted to Welsh Government (WG) in April 2013. As projects have developed these profiles have changed as the challenges of delivering complex projects in a real environment become clearer. However, the WG continue to evaluate progress against the original profiles and unsurprisingly all consortia in Wales are criticised for falling behind on delivery. Internally, SWWITCH PMG has confidence that full spend and delivery as proposed will be achieved and PMG continues to meet monthly to ensure ongoing scrutiny of the regional programme.
2.3 PMG also monitors progress of projects flagged as “Amber” or “Red” by programme managers in each Council. This is important to offer help and support on specific issues as they arise but also to minimise the risk to the overall programme through developing mitigations measures, proposing virements to other
Page 99
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
schemes and generally ensuring that the full RTSG allocation is utilised within the financial year.
2.4 Where it appears to PMG that a scheme cannot fully spend (for whatever reason) a proposal to vire money to another Delivery Plan scheme is agreed. In previous years as the WG is represented on PMG that decision has been effective immediately. However, the WG has introduced new procedures for virement this year, which increases the length of time it takes to secure agreement by requiring certain types of requests to be approved by the Minister. Those referred schemes are where:
• Proposed outcomes from schemes will not be achieved • Where a project is dropped altogether • Where a new scheme is introduced into the delivery Plan
2.5 To the end of November there have been three requests for virement to date as shown in Table Two below:
Table Two – RTCG virement requests Element of RTCG and Project Value of PMG Next steps Virement decision RS capital – from B4239 Crosswell £10k Agreed WG referred for Bridge (Pemb CC) to Bush St ministerial decision Pembs CC RS revenue - £9k underspend £9k Agreed WG referred for form staffing budget to Rider Safe ministerial decision Scheme RTP capital – from Wind St/Tir y £34.9k Agreed Approved by WG Dial lane junction to Ammanford officials Distributor Road
2.6 It is hoped that decisions on the two outstanding virements are made soon as further delays may well impact on the ability to fully utilise the funding.
3.0 2015/16 DELIVERY PLAN PREPARATION
3.1 There has been no confirmation from WG yet as to whether there is going to be any RTCG allocation next financial year and if there is when guidance and indicative allocations might be shared with consortia.
3.2 At the last All Wales Programme Management Group meeting in late October, WG officials could give no indication on either issue and neither could they share with consortia when they might be able to share any intelligence on proposals for 2014/15.
Page 100
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
3.3 In the absence of any guidance and based on previous experience (of late guidance followed by very tight deadlines for submission), SWWITCH Management Group has charged PMG with proposing a Delivery Plan programme for 14/15 based on the City Regions principle (as approved by last Joint Committee). That means in practice looking for fewer and more strategic schemes focusing on connectivity to areas of economic regeneration and to and from strategic hubs.
3.4 Work is ongoing on the assumption that the likely budget for the region will be approximately £5-6m in total (across all elements) and also that there may be some ring fencing for Active Travel Bill schemes, but not to the same extent as for the current financial year (where >30% was ring fenced).
3.5 As it is likely that any required submissions will be to a deadline prior to the next Joint Committee meeting, it is proposed that the final decision on the projects to be included in the 2014/15 Delivery Plan is delegated to SWWITCH Management Group.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 It is RECOMMENDED that:
I. Joint Committee notes progress made to date on delivering the 2013/14 Delivery Plan II. Joint Committee approves the virements proposed by PMG III. Responsibility to approve the 14/15 Delivery Plan is delegated to SWWITCH Management Group
Page 101 Agenda Item 8
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
Consultations
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 SWWITCH is invited to respond to a number of consultations during the course of the year and where it is considered appropriate to do so Officers work together to develop a consistent response. These are generally approved by SWWITCH Management Group and reported back to Joint Committee in due course.
1.2 Since the last Joint Committee a number of responses have been approved by Management Group and submitted on behalf of the region. This paper includes copies of the responses and also proposes a draft response to a current consultation on the new M4 around Newport.
2.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES SUBMITTED IN LAST THREE MONTHS
2.1 The following consultations have been responded to since September 2013:
• Wales Road Casualty Reduction Partnership – Appendix A • Draft Noise Action Plan for Wales – Appendix B • Llandeilo Air Quality Management Area Draft Action Plan - Appendix C
3.0 CURRENT CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Welsh Government is currently consulting on the M4 corridor around Newport. A copy of the consultation leaflet which sets out the key issue and signposts stakeholders to more detail is attached as Appendix D. The closing date for submissions in Monday 16th September 2013.
3.2 This is the second consultation on the M4 in recent year, SWWITCH responded to the original consultation in July 2012 and a copy of the SWWITCH response is attached as Appendix E.
3.3 SWWITCH Officer Working Group has prepared a draft response for consideration by Joint Committee. This is shown as Appendix F. It should be noted that due to the timing of SWWITCH Management Group and the deadline for Committee papers this draft has not been previously approved by SWWITCH Management Group.
3.4 Joint Committee views on the proposed draft response are sought.
3.5 There is a further consultation which was issued in November 2013. This relates to where the Active Travel Bill will apply in Wales. The consultation document is attached as Appendix G. The closing date for this consultation is 28th January 2014.
Page 102
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
3.6 It would be appropriate to respond to this consultation drawing on the experience of the Council Officers on the SWWITCH Walking & Cycling Group. Joint Committee is therefore asked to delegate responsibility to Management Group to approve a response. The response submitted can then be reported back to the next meeting.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 It is RECOMMENDED that:
I. Joint Committee notes and endorsees responses to consultations submitted on behalf of SWWITCH II. Joint Committee approves a response to the M4 consultation III. Responsibility is delegated to SWWITCH Management Group to approve a response to the Active Travel consultation
Page 103
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
Appendix A SWWITCH Response to WRCP Partnership Consultation on “Developing the Partnership Beyond 2013”
Introduction SWWITCH is the South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium, a partnership of four local authorities comprising Carmarthenshire County Council, Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Pembrokeshire County Council and the City & County of Swansea.
The consortium is responsible for developing transport strategy, policies and programme managing the delivery of transport projects in the region, working closely with the public, private and voluntary sectors, local interest groups and the Welsh Government. SWWITCH was responsible for developing a Regional Transport Plan for South West Wales. This statutory plan was adopted in autumn 2009 and approved by the Welsh government at the end of that year.
Since April 2013 SWWITCH is also responsible for funding bus services in the region using Welsh Government grant funding.
Response to Consultation SWWITCH has worked with and supported the Partnership over a number of years and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the future of the Partnership.
SWWITCH has carefully considered the document circulated and the following responses have been discussed and approved at SWWITCH Management Group. There are a number of areas where SWWITCH believes more detailed dialogue is needed as will be evident from the responses below:
1. Funding – SWWITCH comment: Despite the proposed separation of business, the two business elements are inextricably linked – significant variation in either could jeopardise the whole partnership. This is recognised in the risk review in the Paper. There might also be danger that either funding partner could see themselves as funding only that element and not engage on the whole. SWWITCH recognises these risks and asks the WRCRP to ensure processes / governance acknowledges this and ensures there is no likelihood of entrenchment or inflexibility arising
2. Fixed Camera sites – SWWITCH Comment: SWWITCH notes the reduction in the number of operational camera sites and endorses the protocol of maintaining camera housings. However, SWWITCH believes there needs to be a formal and funded (by WRCRP) exit strategy in place to ensure this does not lead to an increase in collisions.
3. Maintenance – SWWITCH Comment: SWWITCH does have concerns over the allocation of responsibility for financing the infrastructure. There appears to be fewer opportunities for misunderstandings to arise if responsibility stays with one body – the WRCRP. It is important the further detailed discussions on this take place to clarify and resolve concerns 4. Core Camera site decisions – SWWITCH Comment: The proposed approach is approved by SWWITCH
5. Scope of mobile camera enforcement – SWWITCH Comment: SWWITCH notes and endorses this proposed approach. However, SWWITCH also proposes that the WRCRP considers extending the scope of work to include enforcement in 20mph limits / zones.
6. Capital Asset Replacement – SWWITCH Comment: SWWITCH seeks clarity from WRCRP on the funding mechanism for the capital replacement programme.
Page 104
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
7. WG to underwrite Business plan – SWWITCH Comment: SWWITCH agrees the principle that the focus of WRCRP should be on casualty reduction and not income generation. To this end, SWWITCH agrees that WG should underwrite the business case. SWWITCH also notes that such a commitment would ensure that WG are active partners in casualty reduction, in terms of strategic delivery.
Page 105
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
Appendix B
SWWITCH Response to Draft Noise Action Plan
Background SWWITCH is the South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium, a partnership of four local authorities comprising: • Carmarthenshire County Council, • Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, • Pembrokeshire County Council and • The City & County of Swansea
The Consortium is responsible for developing transport policy and programme managing the delivery of transport projects in the region, working closely with the private sector, local interest groups and the Welsh Government.
Introduction SWWITCH is pleased to be invited to respond to the consultation Draft Noise Action Plan. SWWITCH Councils have made varying degrees of contribution to the draft plan and it represents a significant body of work.
Noise is an important part of the quality of life and as set out in the introductory sections, harmful noise levels can have a prolonged impact on health and well-being.
As far as transport related harmful noise is concerned, SWWITCH believes that the rail electrification to Swansea will significantly improve those concerns relevant to homes adjacent to rail stations/depots. In addition, proposals for selected road or road junction improvements will have beneficial impacts for residents who live near bottlenecks in the Swansea/Neath Port Talbot agglomeration area.
The introduction of the Active Travel Bill, which it is hoped will encourage modal shift to walking and cycling, could also be helpful to reduce traffic related noise.
Response to questions
Q1 Does the draft noise action plan accurately describe the way in which noise is managed in Wales? The development of noise management has improved significantly over the last few years and this is in response to both requirements imposed externally but also to the recognition of the impact that unacceptable levels of noise can have on human health and productivity, ecosystems and social inclusion. The draft noise action plan does provide an easy to understand description of what is a very technical system to manage noise.
Q2 Do you agree with the proposed actions to be taken by bodies with responsibilities in Wales in the next five years? Yes, the right bodies have been correctly identified and the critical issue will be to make sure that the constraints on public sector funding do not prevent Local Councils from doing all that they need to do to ensure that harmful noise is minimised and tranquil spaces are protected.
Q3 Do you think the draft action plan fulfils the requirements for the second round of noise action planning under the European Noise Directive? Yes.
Page 106
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
Q4 Do you agree with the candidate quiet areas nominated by local authorities in annexes C,D and E? Yes these areas do offer relative tranquility for local residents and it is very important that they are identified for the purposes of the END as such, thereby protecting them from any inappropriate development.
Page 107
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
Appendix C
SWWITCH Response to Draft Noise Action Plan
Background SWWITCH is the South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium, a partnership of four local authorities comprising: • Carmarthenshire County Council, • Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, • Pembrokeshire County Council and • The City & County of Swansea
The Consortium is responsible for developing transport policy and programme managing the delivery of transport projects in the region, working closely with the private sector, local interest groups and the Welsh Government.
Introduction SWWITCH is pleased to be invited to respond to the consultation Draft Noise Action Plan. SWWITCH Councils have made varying degrees of contribution to the draft plan and it represents a significant body of work.
Noise is an important part of the quality of life and as set out in the introductory sections, harmful noise levels can have a prolonged impact on health and well-being.
As far as transport related harmful noise is concerned, SWWITCH believes that the rail electrification to Swansea will significantly improve those concerns relevant to homes adjacent to rail stations/depots. In addition, proposals for selected road or road junction improvements will have beneficial impacts for residents who live near bottlenecks in the Swansea/Neath Port Talbot agglomeration area.
The introduction of the Active Travel Bill, which it is hoped will encourage modal shift to walking and cycling, could also be helpful to reduce traffic related noise.
Response to questions
Q1 Does the draft noise action plan accurately describe the way in which noise is managed in Wales? The development of noise management has improved significantly over the last few years and this is in response to both requirements imposed externally but also to the recognition of the impact that unacceptable levels of noise can have on human health and productivity, ecosystems and social inclusion. The draft noise action plan does provide an easy to understand description of what is a very technical system to manage noise.
Q2 Do you agree with the proposed actions to be taken by bodies with responsibilities in Wales in the next five years? Yes, the right bodies have been correctly identified and the critical issue will be to make sure that the constraints on public sector funding do not prevent Local Councils from doing all that they need to do to ensure that harmful noise is minimized and tranquil spaces are protected.
Q3 Do you think the draft action plan fulfills the requirements for the second round of noise action planning under the European Noise Directive? Yes
Page 108
SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013
Q4 Do you agree with the candidate quiet areas nominated by local authorities in annexes C,D and E? Yes these areas do offer relative tranquility for local residents and it is very important that they are identified for the purposes of the END as such, thereby protecting them from any inappropriate development.
Page 109 0&RUULGRUDURXQG 1HZSRUW
We want your views on our draft Plan which aims to address transport related problems on the M4 around Newport.
This is why we are holding a 12 week public consultation starting on 23 September and closing on 16 December 2013.
What is this about? :HDUHFRQVXOWLQJRQDGUDIW3ODQZKLFK 8QUHOLDEOHMRXUQH\WLPHVDQGWUDI¿F EXLOGVRQWKHLQIRUPDWLRQZHKDYHDOUHDG\ FRQJHVWLRQSDUWLFXODUO\GXULQJUXVKKRXU JDWKHUHGDQGSUHVHQWV\RXZLWKWKH DUHFRPPRQRFFXUUHQFHVRQWKH0 RSSRUWXQLW\WRWHOOXVZKDW\RXWKLQNDERXW DURXQG1HZSRUW7KLVLVGXHWRWKHODFNRI RXUSUHIHUUHGVWUDWHJ\IRUWKH0DURXQG FDSDFLW\DQGDOWHUQDWLYHURXWHVHVSHFLDOO\ 1HZSRUW GXULQJLQFLGHQWVDQGDFFLGHQWV7KH:HOVK ,ILPSOHPHQWHGWKHGUDIW3ODQZRXOGOHDG *RYHUQPHQWLVFRPPLWWHGWRPDNLQJD WRDPRWRUZD\EHLQJEXLOWWRWKHVRXWK FKDQJH RI1HZSRUW How you can help :HZDQWDVPDQ\SHRSOHDVSRVVLEOHWR YLHZDQGFRPPHQWRQRXUGUDIW3ODQDQGLWV DVVRFLDWHGVWUDWHJLFHQYLURQPHQWDOKDELWDWV UHJXODWLRQVKHDOWKDQGHTXDOLW\DVVHVVPHQWV
Page 110 How to share your views Page 111 &RULGRU\U0 RDPJ\OFK&DVQHZ\GG Rydym am gael eich barn ar ein Cynllun draft sy’n ceisio mynd i’r afael â phroblemau sy’n gysylltiedig â thrafnidiaeth ar yr M4 o amgylch Casnewydd. Dyna pam yr ydym yn cynnal ymgynghoriad cyhoeddus am 12 wythnos a fydd yn dechrau ar 23 Medi ac yn dod i ben ar 16 Rhagfyr 2013. %HWK\ZKDQHVK\QLJ\G" 5\G\P\Q\PJ\QJKRULDU*\QOOXQGUDIIWV\¶Q 0DHDPVHUDXVLZUQHLDXDQQLE\QDGZ\D DGHLODGXDU\Z\ERGDHWKDJDVJOZ\GJHQQ\P WKDJIH\GGWUDI¿J\QHQZHGLJ\Q\VWRG\U HLVRHVDF\QF\QQLJ\F\ÀHLFKLGGZHXGHLFK DGHJEU\VXUDI\QGGLJZ\GGLDGDXF\IIUHGLQ EDUQZUWK\PDPHLQVWUDWHJDHWKDIIHIULUDU DU\U0RDPJ\OFK&DVQHZ\GG'LII\J J\IHU\U0RDPJ\OFK&DVQHZ\GG FDSDVLWLDOOZ\EUDXDPJHQV\¶QJ\IULIRODP 3HEDL¶QFDHOHLURLDUZDLWKE\GGDL¶U&\QOOXQ K\Q\QHQZHGLJ\Q\VWRGGLJZ\GGLDGDXD GUDIIW\QDUZDLQDWDGHLODGXWUDIIRUGGL¶UGHR GDPZHLQLDX0DH/O\ZRGUDHWK&\PUXZHGL *DVQHZ\GG \PUZ\PRLZQHXGQHZLG Sut gallwch chi helpu 5\G\PDPLJ\QLIHUREREOkSKRVLEOZHOG DJZQHXGV\OZDGDXDUHLQ&\QOOXQGUDIW D¶LDVHVLDGDXDPJ\OFKHGGROVWUDWHJRO UKHROLDGDXF\QH¿QRHGGLHFK\GD FK\GUDGGROGHEF\V\OOWLHGLJ Page 112 Sut i rannu eich barn *DOOZFKUDQQXHLFKEDUQQDLOODLDUOHLQ\Q Gallwch ymweld ag un o’n www.m4newport.comQHXDUEDSXUJDQ Harddangosfeydd Galw Heibio lle GGHIQ\GGLR¶UIIXUÀHQ\PDWHEXQLJROD¶LKDQIRQ gallwch siarad â’n staff a chael DWHLQF\IHLULDGUKDGERVW‘FREEPOST M4 mwy o wybodaeth am y CONSULTATION’. Cynllun drafft. 0DHGRJIHQQDX¶U\PJ\QJKRULDGD¶UIIXUÀHQQL \PDWHEXQLJRODUJDHOL¶ZODZUOZ\WKR\Q\ $UGGDQJRVIH\GG*DOZ+HLELR JZHJ\IHLULDGXFKRGQHXJHOOLUHXJZHOG 12yh-7yh PHZQOODZHUR*DQROIDQQDX&DGZRDPJ\OFK Dydd Mercher 2 a Dydd Iau 3 Hydref &DVQHZ\GG\Q\VWRG\F\IQRG\PJ\QJKRUL 0DJZ\U(JOZ\V\%HG\GGZ\U(EHQHVHU *DOOZFKKHI\GRI\QDPJRSLSDSXUWUZ\ 13+< GGHIQ\GGLR¶UPDQ\OLRQF\V\OOWXLVRGQHXL Dydd Mawrth 8 a Dydd Mercher 9 Hydref JDHOPZ\RZ\ERGDHWK &DVQHZ\GG&DQROIDQ&DVQHZ\GG138+ SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 Appendix E – Response to original M4 consultation in 2012 Background The South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium (SWWITCH) was formed in 1998 by the four Councils in South West Wales: • Carmarthenshire County Council • Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council • Pembrokeshire County Council • The City and County of Swansea It was acknowledged that relatively small local Councils lacked the capacity and experience in strategic transport planning and that there would be benefits in regional collaboration. This approach was subsequently encouraged by the Welsh Government which has financially supported SWWITCH since 2001/02. The voluntary grouping has evolved over time and was formalised through the adoption of a SWWITCH legal Agreement (2005) and the adoption of a Regional Transport Plan (RTP), covering the period 2010 – 2015. The RTP vision is to: ….improve transport and access within and beyond the region to facilitate economic development… The RTP objectives include “to improve the efficiency and reliability of the movement of people and freight within and beyond South West Wales.” The long term strategy indentifies a clear action to “Improve strategic east/west road and rail links to create more reliable internal connectivity and improved connectivity with the rest of Wales, the UK and Europe.” Introduction Whilst the Magor to Castleton section of the M4 is not in the SWWITCH region the capacity and resilience of the M4 is important to SWWITCH in terms of and access to and from the region to support economic development, encourage inward investment and thus reduce social exclusion. The M4 corridor is inextricably linked with the RTP objectives and thus the outputs and outcomes SWWITCH is seeking to achieve. The M4 forms part of the Trans European Network which continues through South West Wales as part of the land bridge connecting Ireland to the UK and wider European markets. It provides a major artery to, from and within South West Wales and disruption and a delay around the Newport region has an immediate impact in SWWITCH as a result of delayed journeys (and the implications which arise for private individuals, businesses and freight operators) and traffic diverting onto alternative routes. It also has a longer term impact in terms of concerns about journey time reliability and thus a negative impact on business development and growing local enterprises. SWWITCH would like to emphasise the need to consider the M4 corridor as a whole, in terms of the strategic function, capacity and resilience, before then dealing with specific pinch points and junctions. This is particularly pertinent with the forthcoming consultation on junctions in the Neath Port Talbot area. In addition, SWWITCH believes that the business case made for extended electrification of the Great Western Mainline to Swansea should be considered as part of the alternative capacity and sustainable options for the M4 corridor. Consultation Response SWWITCH has not attempted to answer all the questions posed (especially question B which is aimed at individuals) in the proforma provided, and it would be inappropriate to respond in detail to specific options for route alignments or type of interventions, when SWWITCH does not represent the individuals or communities which would be most affected by the options. However, it is hoped that the following comments will be viewed constructively and help to drive forward some early decisions on a workable option for improving the resilience and capacity of the M4 around Newport. Page 114 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 Question 1a – The transport related problems are all important and the focus of the SWWITCH RTP, like the Wales Transport Strategy and the National transport Plan is all about achieving a balance between the three pillars of sustainability, namely the economy, the environment and society. However the list does include a number of problems (related to safety for example) which are almost exclusively related to capacity and resilience issues. The four most important problems listed are: • 1 –Volumes of traffic greater than design predictions leading to regular congestion • 4– Insufficient capacity at junctions around Newport • 5 – Bryn Glas tunnels as pinch point • 15 – Lack of sustainable alternatives Question 2a –The goals of the M4 programme which SWWITCH believes are most important are clearly linked to the strategic nature of the route and its ability to facilitate economic regeneration in South West Wales. The four most important are: • 1 – Safer easier and more reliable East –West travel • 2 – Improved connections within and beyond Wales • 6 – Increased level of choice for all journeys • 11 – improved travel experience into South Wales Question 3a – The public transport options all have the potential to reduce the use of the M4 by some current users, albeit for SWWITCH residents and businesses, who would inevitably be making longer distance journeys, local bus service options or additional local trains would be of less use. For SWWITCH the key measure would be “Additional mainline rail services between Swansea and Bristol (and especially London)”. However, SWWITCH believes that the public transport measures alone would not solve the current M4 issues, they would have to be introduced as part of the overall programme of improvements. Question 3b – Additional mainline rail services would help to address a lack of sustainable alternatives (problem) and to improve connections and increase choice for journeys. But as stressed above, SWWITCH believes that improved capacity and thus resilience on the M4 must be introduced as well as improved alternatives. Question 4 - SWWITCH is of the view that Options A, C or D (which have very different costs and implications in terms of the environment and local communities) would address the main problems and achieve the goals SWWITCH identified in earlier questions. It would be helpful to understand the phasing and timing of each option. This is because the over riding need is to take action as soon as possible, and not to avoid the difficult decisions and thus prolong the negative impact on the economy. SWWITCH does not believe that Option B will address the problems or goals identified as priorities. The lack of grade separation at the numerous junctions will not be attractive alternative to the M4 and is unlikely to encourage local or long distance traffic. Page 115 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 Appendix F – Draft M4 consultation response M4 CORRIDOR AROUND NEWPORT – DRAFT PLAN CONSULTATION About SWWITCH SWWITCH is the South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium a partnership of four local authorities comprising Carmarthenshire County Council, Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Pembrokeshire County Council and the City & County of Swansea. The consortium is charged with developing transport policy and delivering transport projects in the region, working closely with both the private sector, local interest groups and the Welsh Government. SWWITCH believes that the current capacity of the M4 around Newport is detrimental to economic regeneration and inward investment in south West Wales. In the context of the Swansea Bay City Region and the key part that connectivity has to play in developing and sustaining economic activity, the resilience and capacity of the M4 in east Wales does need to be improved. It is important that improvements take place as soon as possible and are not delayed into the next decade. There is a once in a generation opportunity with the electrification of the South wales Mainline and enhanced capacity on the M4 to create a truly “connected” South Wales. 1. Question 1. Please provide any comments regarding the draft Plan (Black Route and its Complementary measures) here. In particular, to what extent do you think that it will address the problems and achieve the goals of the M4 Corridor around Newport? 1.1 SWWITCH supports the conclusion that the current motorway provision is lacking in respect of capacity and resilience leading to peak hour congestion and poor journey time reliability. This has been the subject of significant anecdotal evidence through the former South West Wales Economic forum to the SWWITCH Joint Committee. SWWITCH supports the view that the ‘black route’ as identified in the draft Plan document represents the most pragmatic solution to rectifying the issues of capacity and reliability at NewportWhilst the role of the M4 and its enhancement is extremely important to the connectivity of the Swansea Bay City Region, SWWITCH would like to register concern that such a commitment should not result in reductions to Welsh Government Transport Funding for South West Wales. Current grant funding been very low over the term of the Regional Transport Plan and it would therefore be of great concern if a commitment to this scheme would prolong current low funding levels. This would slow down the plans to increase connectivity to and from area of regeneration within the City region Page 116 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 2. Question 2. Please provide any comments regarding the Red Route and its complementary measures (a reasonable alternative to the draft Plan) here. In particular, to what extent do you think that it will address the problems and achieve the goals of the M4 Corridor around Newport? 2.1 SWWITCH is not best placed to provide specific comments in relation to the alignment of the options considered in the plan as we are not aware of the implications of these alignments to current land uses and designations. 2.2 SWWITCH would however be supportive of these proposed options over that of the aforementioned ‘black route’ if their pursual on a phased basis. would cause less disruption to Welsh Government funding packages and minimise the financial uncertainties to SWWITCH transport schemes. 2.3 It is noted that both the red and purple routes travel through areas identified for employment use and while regeneration is undoubtedly an excellent additional benefit to the scheme, SWWITCH would be concerned if the pursuit of this regeneration detracted from the strategic nature of the road through the imposition of numerous junctions which might reduce capacity and reliable through-put for this link. 2.4 SWWITCH is very supportive of the opportunity to provide strategic walking and cycling infrastructure as part of this project and would be an excellent signal of intent in support of the Active Travel Bill on the part of the Welsh Government. SWWITCH would urge that if this proves to be a feasible option that the route treatments and alignments be carefully considered to construct routes which are away from general road traffic where possible, and perhaps could take advantage of some of the greenfield areas which will be adjacent to the road alignments. 3. Question 3. Please provide any comments regarding the Purple Route and its complementary measures (a reasonable alternative to the draft Plan) here. In particular, to what extent do you think that it will address the problems and achieve the goals of the M4 Corridor around Newport? 3.1 As above. 4. Question 4. Please provide any comments regarding the ‘do minimum scenario’ here. In particular, to what extent do you think that it will address the problems and achieve the goals of the M4 Corridor around Newport? 4.1 The ‘do minimum’ scenario cannot be considered to be sustainable for the long term. SWWITCH would not consider this to be an appropriate response in light of the anticipated increase in traffic flows. 5. Question 5. Please provide any comments regarding the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the draft Plan here. 5.1 None. Page 117 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 6. Question 6. Please provide any comments regarding the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the draft Plan here. 6.1 None. Page 118 Number: WG20079 Welsh Government Consultation Document Consultation on where the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 will apply within Wales Date of issue: 6 November 2013 Action required: Responses by 28 January 2014 Page 119 Overview Data Protection This consultation is to gather views on How the views and information you give us the proposed content of a Direction on will be used designated settlements under the Active Any response you send us will be seen in Travel (Wales) Act 2013. full by Welsh Government staff dealing The Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 includes with the issues which this consultation is provision for the Welsh Ministers to specify, about. It may also be seen by other Welsh by direction, the settlements to which Government staff to help them plan future sections of the Act applies. consultations. How to respond The Welsh Government intends to publish a summary of the responses to this document. Please respond by completing the We may also publish responses in full. questionnaire at the back of this document Normally, the name and address (or part of and sending it to the address) of the person or organisation [email protected] or who sent the response are published with The Active Travel Bill Team, the response. This helps to show that the Transport Policy and Legislation, consultation was carried out properly. If Welsh Government, you do not want your name or address Ground Floor, published, please tell us this in writing when Cathays Park 2 you send your response. We will then blank Cardiff them out. CF10 3NQ Names or addresses we blank out might Further information and related documents still get published later, though we do not think this would happen very often. The Large print, Braille and alternate Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the language versions of this document Environmental Information Regulations 2004 are available on request. allow the public to ask to see information The full text of the Active Travel (Wales) held by many public bodies, including Act 2013, the accompanying Explanatory the Welsh Government. This includes Memorandum and details of the Act’s information which has not been published. passage through the Assembly is available However, the law also allows us to withhold at: http://www.senedd.assemblywales.org/ information in some circumstances. If mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=5750 anyone asks to see information we have withheld, we will have to decide whether to Contact Details release it or not. If someone has asked for For further information: their name and address not to be published, that is an important fact we would take into The Active Travel (Wales) Bill Team account. However, there might sometimes Transport Policy and Legislation, be important reasons why we would have Welsh Government, to reveal someone’s name and address, even Ground Floor, though they have asked for them not to be Cathays Park 2 published. We would get in touch with the Cardiff person and ask their views before we finally CF10 3NQ decided to reveal the information. [email protected] Page 120 © Crown copyright 2013 The Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 We want to enable more people to walk and cycle and generally travel by more active methods. We want to make walking and cycling the most natural and normal way of getting about. We want to do this so that more people can experience the health benefits; we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions; and we can help address poverty and disadvantage. At the same time, we want to help our economy to grow, and take steps to unlock sustainable economic growth. To help achieve these aims, we introduced the Active Travel (Wales) Bill in the National Assembly earlier this year. The Bill was passed by the National Assembly and has received Royal Assent to become the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. The Act includes provisions that require local authorities in Wales to: x identify and map the network of routes within their areas that are safe and appropriate for walking and cycling for journeys to access work, education and other services and facilities; x identify and map the enhancements that would be required to create a fully integrated network for walking and cycling for journeys to access work, education and other services and facilities; x deliver an enhanced network by requiring local authorities to secure new and improved active travel routes and facilities each year; x take reasonable steps to enhance walking and cycling provision in new road schemes and consider the needs of walkers and cyclists in a range of highway authority functions; x promote walking and cycling as a mode of transport. The final two points will also apply to the Welsh Government. Where the Act will apply Active travel has a lot of benefits for individuals and for societies, but it has some limitations too. Active travel is a great mode of travel for shorter journeys. Fewer people are likely to use active travel for long distance journeys or over more difficult terrain. For this reason, some of the provisions of the Active Travel (Wales) Act will not apply uniformly across Wales. Instead, the provisions requiring the production and publication of maps and to make year on year improvements to infrastructure will only apply to particular areas where we think that there is potential for active travel to be a well-used mode of transport. Page 121 The Active Travel (Wales) Act contains provision for the Welsh Ministers to specify by Direction the localities to which sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Active Travel (Wales) Act will apply. A copy of the Active Travel (Wales) Act can be found at http://www.senedd.assemblywales.org/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=5750 and sections 2(4) and (5) are copied here: 4) In this Act “designated”, in relation to a locality, means specified, or of a description specified, in a direction given by the Welsh Ministers. 5) The Welsh Ministers may, in particular, specify a locality, or description of locality, by reference to— (a) density of population, (b) size, (c) proximity to densely-populated localities above a particular size, (d) position between such localities, (e) proximity to community services and facilities, or (f) potential for other reasons to be a locality, or description of locality, in which more travel is undertaken by walkers and cyclists by active travel journeys. This consultation seeks views on where the provisions of the Act should apply. The following section explains how data from the Office of National Statistics has been used to identify locations, and why we think that these locations have the potential for greater rates of active travel. We propose that the Direction lists the designated localities by name. The criteria in section 2(5) have been used to identify the localities. The relevant data is presented alongside the names of the localities in Annex 1. An alternative approach to designating a locality is for the Direction to contain a description. Examples of a description could be “has a population of greater than x” or “is within x miles of a train station”. We feel that naming the places to which the Act applies is simpler and more transparent than presenting a description of a location. This is an area where we would like to gather views. Q1. Do you agree that the Direction should list designated localities by name, or should the Direction specify a description of a designated locality? Q2. If a description is more appropriate, what description should be used? The Data In order to develop the Regulatory Impact Assessment, the 2001 census data was used to identify all settlements with a population greater than 2000. This generated some useful data, allowing us to provide an estimation of the costs of delivering the Bill. However, the scrutiny of the Bill identified some flaws with this approach. There are many smaller settlements across Wales that are considerably below the population threshold, but are located very near to a larger settlement. These settlements would benefit from improved active travel links Page 122 between them and the larger settlement, enabling better access to services and facilities. Since the Bill was introduced, the 2011 census data has become available. This data, which has been characterised in a different way, also allows us to resolve the difficulty of designating settlements that are located very near to a larger settlement. The 2011 census data analysis took a new approach to quantifying the area of settlements, which they now refer to as “built up areas” rather than urban areas. These areas have been derived by the ONS by splitting the whole of England and Wales into 50 metre by 50 metre squares. The Ordnance Survey have then automatically identified the predominant land use in each square as either built up or not built up. Built up, which is what concerns us, is predominantly made up of buildings, houses, roads, areas of tarmac and concrete, and gardens. Where built up squares sit next to each other, then they are amalgamated into larger built up areas. Areas like airports were identified as built up in the course of a separate manual exercise (because the large areas of grass meant the automatic process did not work); and areas like parks, surrounded by dwellings, were also amalgamated into the relevant built up area. If settlements were within 200 metres of each other, then they were linked together into a single built up areas. The ONS had an automatic process for getting names for these built up areas. This is necessary as many of these built up areas are amalgamations of a number of towns and villages. The ONS have then made a best fit approximation to fit the built up areas (measured in 50m*50m squares) against 2011 Census output areas (which had a different set of boundaries) in order to match the area against the 'usual resident population'. These population measures create a minor statistical issue around the smaller built up areas with a population of 1,500 and below, but should be sufficiently robust for larger settlements. How we used this data We compared the lists of built up areas with maps of Wales. This showed us whether it was reasonable to group the settlements in those areas for active travel. We considered the typography of the areas, to see if there were natural barriers such as hills. We also considered if there was existing walking and cycling infrastructure in place, such as the Wales Coast Path. We considered the proximity of the settlements, both to each other and to neighbouring built up areas. We considered the size and density of the population, and the size and density of neighbouring areas. We considered the location of some of the obvious services and facilities, such as schools, hospitals and railway stations. Some local facilities, such as child care centres, local shops, and office sites, could not easily be identified in all cases. We did not consider these services and facilities in determining locations due to a lack of evidence, but these are important services and facilities and we welcome consultation responses that address this point. All this information was combined to produce a list of proposed designated localities. This list should allow the Act to benefit a large number of people in Page 123 Wales, and help to make active travel a valuable mode of transport for many of them. Q3. Do you agree that the designated localities listed in Annex 1 are the best ones to use? Are there any that should be left out of the Direction, or more that should be added? What happens next? We want to hear your views about the proposed contents of the Direction. The consultation period runs until 28 January 2013. All consultation responses will be taken into consideration when deciding the contents of the Direction. The Direction will then be made by the Welsh Ministers and published. The Direction will specify the areas to which the provisions of the Act must be applied. However, local authorities will have discretion to extend the provisions of the Act to other areas if they wish. Page 124 Consultation Response Form Your name: Organisation (if applicable): email/telephone number: Your address: Q1. Do you agree that the Direction should list designated localities by name, or should the Direction specify a description of a designated locality? Q2. If a description is more appropriate, what description should be used? Q3. Do you agree that the designated localities listed in Annex 1 are the best ones to use? Are there any that should be left out of the Direction, or more that should be added? Q4. We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them: Responses to consultations may be made public – on the internet or in a report. If you would prefer your response to be kept confidential, please tick here: Page 125 Annex 1: Proposed list of settlements in Wales to be named in the Direction. The table below lists Built Up Areas (BUAs) in Wales that have a ‘usual resident population’ of more than 2,000 people. BUAs are determined by the predominant land use of 50 metre by 50 metre squares, the built up squares that sit next to each other are amalgamated into a BUA. Where BUAs are within 200 metres of another BUA they are also amalgamated into one BUA. This approach is beneficial for determining where the Active Travel Bill will apply as it allows us to resolve the difficulty of designating smaller settlements that are located very near to a larger settlement. However, this means that BUAs include some towns and villages that are not usually considered part of the area that the BUA is named after. For example, Caerphilly is usually considered separate to Cardiff but it is part of Cardiff BUA. To address this, Built Up Area Subdivisions (BUASDs) can also be identified. The table below shows all of the BUASDs within each BUA. The proposal is that all of the BUASDs within BUAs with a ‘usual resident population’ of more than 2,000 are places that all sections of the Active Travel (Wales) Bill will apply to. For example, all sections of the Bill would apply to Wrexham BUA. This means that although Bradley only has a population of 1,323 all sections of the Bill would apply to Bradley because it is part of Wrexham BUA which together has a population over the 2,000 threshold. Annex 2 shows the areas covered by this list of BUAs on a map of Wales. Built Up Area (BUA) Built Up Area Subdivision (BUASD) Population Cardiff BUA 447,287 Cardiff - Caerphilly BUASD 41,402 Cardiff - Cardiff BUASD 335,145 Cardiff - Dinas Powys BUASD 7,490 Cardiff - Penarth BUASD 27,226 Cardiff - Pontypridd BUASD 30,457 Cardiff - Taff's Well BUASD 5,567 Newport (Newport) BUA 306,844 Newport (Newport) - Aberbargoed BUASD 994 Newport (Newport) - Abercarn BUASD 5,352 Newport (Newport) - Abersychan BUASD 7,573 Newport (Newport) - Bargoed BUASD 11,537 Newport (Newport) - Blackwood BUASD 24,042 Newport (Newport) - Cwmbran BUASD 46,915 Newport (Newport) - Newbridge BUASD 9,590 Newport (Newport) - Newport BUASD 128,060 Newport (Newport) - Pontllan-fraith BUASD 9,220 Newport (Newport) - Pontypool BUASD 28,334 Newport (Newport) - Risca BUASD 14,958 Newport (Newport) - Wattsville BUASD 1,065 Newport (Newport) - Ystrad Mynach BUASD 19,204 Page 126 Swansea BUA 300,352 Swansea - Glais BUASD 838 Swansea - Gowerton BUASD 8,183 Swansea - Neath BUASD 50,658 Swansea - Pontardawe BUASD 12,333 Swansea - Port Talbot BUASD 37,276 Swansea - Swansea BUASD 179,485 Swansea - Upper Killay BUASD 1,331 Swansea - Ystradgynlais BUASD 10,248 Wrexham BUA 65,692 Wrexham - Bradley BUASD 1,323 Wrexham - Rhostyllen BUASD 2,766 Wrexham - Wrexham BUASD 61,603 Buckley BUA 63,576 Buckley - Buckley BUASD 19,639 Buckley - Connah's Quay BUASD 16,774 Buckley - Deeside Industrial Park BUASD 2,134 Buckley - Northop Hall BUASD 1,530 Buckley - Sandycroft BUASD 6,724 Buckley - Shotton BUASD 16,775 Tonypandy BUA 62,545 Tonypandy - Porth BUASD 14,648 Tonypandy - Rhondda BUASD 13,333 Tonypandy - Tonypandy BUASD 17,789 Tonypandy - Treherbert BUASD 5,440 Tonypandy - Treorchy BUASD 7,694 Tonypandy - Tylorstown BUASD 3,641 Bridgend BUA 58,380 Bridgend - Bridgend BUASD 46,757 Bridgend - Sarn BUASD 10,805 Bridgend - Trelales BUASD 818 Barry BUA 54,673 Llanelli BUA 49,591 Llanelli - Llanelli (town) BUASD 43,878 Llanelli - Llangennech BUASD 4,324 Llanelli - Pwll BUASD 1,389 Rhyl/Prestatyn BUA 46,267 Rhyl/Prestatyn - Dyserth BUASD 2,269 Rhyl/Prestatyn - Meliden BUASD 2,066 Rhyl/Prestatyn - Prestatyn (town) BUASD 16,783 Rhyl/Prestatyn - Rhyl (town) BUASD 25,149 Merthyr Tydfil BUA 43,820 Colwyn Bay BUA 34,284 Colwyn Bay - Colwyn Bay BUASD 29,405 Colwyn Bay - Penrhyn Bay BUASD 4,432 Page 127 Colwyn Bay - Penrhyn-side BUASD 447 Ebbw Vale BUA 33,068 Ebbw Vale - Blaina BUASD 4,808 Ebbw Vale - Brynmawr BUASD 5,530 Ebbw Vale - Ebbw Vale BUASD 18,095 Ebbw Vale - Nantyglo BUASD 4,635 Aberdare BUA 31,135 Aberdare - Aberdare BUASD 29,748 Aberdare - Fernhill BUASD 1,387 Flint BUA 26,442 Flint - Flint BUASD 14,907 Flint - Gorsedd BUASD 391 Flint - Holywell BUASD 9,808 Flint - Walwen BUASD 1,336 Rhosllanerchrugog BUA 25,362 Rhosllanerchrugog - Cefn-mawr BUASD 7,051 Rhosllanerchrugog - Rhosllanerchrugog BUASD 13,501 Rhosllanerchrugog - Ruabon BUASD 3,357 Rhosllanerchrugog - Trevor BUASD 1,453 Ammanford BUA 23,709 Ammanford - Ammanford BUASD 7,945 Ammanford - Pen-y-groes BUASD 5,717 Ammanford - Penybanc BUASD 1,126 Ammanford - Saron BUASD 867 Ammanford - Tumble BUASD 4,302 Ammanford - Tycroes BUASD 3,752 Church Village BUA 23,277 Church Village - Beddau BUASD 8,236 Church Village - Church Village BUASD 13,783 Church Village - Efail Isaf BUASD 1,258 Maesteg BUA 21,001 Maesteg - Croeserw BUASD 1,569 Maesteg - Cymmer BUASD 544 Maesteg - Maesteg BUASD 18,888 Gorseinon BUA 20,581 Gorseinon - Gorseinon BUASD 15,757 Gorseinon - Loughor BUASD 4,824 Aberystwyth BUA 18,749 Aberystwyth - Aberystwyth BUASD 18,093 Aberystwyth - Llanbadarn Fawr BUASD 656 Kinmel Bay/Abergele BUA 18,705 Kinmel Bay/Abergele - Abergele BUASD 9,208 Kinmel Bay/Abergele - Kinmel Bay BUASD 9,497 Bangor BUA 17,988 Chepstow BUA 16,169 Page 128 Carmarthen BUA 15,854 Porthcawl BUA 15,672 Llandudno BUA 15,371 Tredegar BUA 14,855 Abergavenny BUA 14,651 Abergavenny - Abergavenny BUASD 13,423 Abergavenny - Llanfoist BUASD 1,228 Haverfordwest BUA 14,596 Llantrisant BUA 14,422 Llantrisant - Brynsadler BUASD 1,158 Llantrisant - Llantrisant BUASD 13,264 Llantwit Major BUA 14,384 Llantwit Major - Llanmaes BUASD 403 Llantwit Major - Llantwit Major BUASD 8,427 Pyle BUA 13,701 Milford Haven BUA 13,582 Treharris BUA 12,352 Treharris - Nelson (Caerphilly) BUASD 4,647 Treharris - Treharris BUASD 7,705 Holyhead BUA 11,431 Newtown (Powys) BUA 11,357 Mountain Ash BUA 11,230 Cil-y-coed BUA 11,200 Bryn Pydew BUA 11,109 Bryn Pydew - Bryn Pydew BUASD 451 Bryn Pydew - Llandudno Junction BUASD 10,658 Abertillery BUA 10,946 Monmouth BUA 10,110 Mold BUA 10,058 Pembroke Dock BUA 9,753 Caernarfon BUA 9,730 Caernarfon - Caeathro BUASD 237 Caernarfon - Caernarfon BUASD 9,493 Tonyrefail BUA 9,317 Pencoed BUA 9,166 Pontarddulais BUA 9,073 Caerleon BUA 8,747 Rhymney BUA 8,537 Rhymney - Pontlottyn BUASD 1,924 Rhymney - Rhymney BUASD 5,151 Denbigh BUA 8,514 Burry Port BUA 8,310 Burry Port - Burry Port BUASD 6,156 Burry Port - Pembrey BUASD 2,154 Brecon BUA 8,250 Page 129 Pembroke BUA 7,552 Ferndale BUA 7,338 Hirwaun BUA 7,247 Brynna BUA 6,686 Abertridwr BUA 6,504 Rhoose BUA 6,160 Abercynon BUA 5,983 Broughton (Flintshire) BUA 5,974 Welshpool BUA 5,948 Undy BUA 5,914 Coedpoeth BUA 5,723 Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen/Brynamman BUA 5,692 Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen/Brynamman - Brynamman BUASD 2,608 Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen/Brynamman - Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen 3,084 BUASD Blaenavon BUA 5,647 Ogmore Vale/Nant-y-moel BUA 5,461 Ogmore Vale/Nant-y-moel - Nant-y-moel BUASD 2,344 Ogmore Vale/Nant-y-moel - Ogmore Vale BUASD 3,117 Ruthin BUA 5,461 Glyn-neath BUA 5,419 Glyn-neath - Blaengwrach BUASD 1,141 Glyn-neath - Glyn-neath BUASD 4,278 Cwmavon BUA 5,336 Llandrindod Wells BUA 5,309 Cardigan BUA 5,301 Cardigan - Cardigan BUASD 4,184 Cardigan - St Dogmaels BUASD 1,117 Gresford BUA 5,010 Menai Bridge BUA 4,958 Llangefni BUA 4,864 Bethesda BUA 4,735 Bethesda - Bethesda BUASD 3,799 Bethesda - Rachub BUASD 936 Hope (Flintshire) BUA 4,706 Hope (Flintshire) - Hope BUASD 4,284 Hope (Flintshire) - Sydallt BUASD 422 Tenby BUA 4,696 Llay BUA 4,681 Hendreforgan/Gilfach Goch BUA 4,395 Hendreforgan/Gilfach Goch - Gilfach Goch BUASD 1,920 Hendreforgan/Gilfach Goch - Hendreforgan BUASD 2,475 Glanaman BUA 4,384 Pontycymer BUA 4,288 New Tredegar BUA 4,208 Page 130 Pwllheli BUA 4,076 Glyncoch BUA 4,020 Chirk BUA 4,007 Conwy BUA 3,873 Cowbridge BUA 3,804 Llanbradach BUA 3,746 Rhuddlan BUA 3,709 Neyland BUA 3,708 Blaenau Ffestiniog BUA 3,662 Llanfairfechan BUA 3,637 Penyffordd BUA 3,554 Aberfan BUA 3,547 Ynysybwl BUA 3,503 Murton (Swansea) BUA 3,500 Llangollen BUA 3,466 Fishguard BUA 3,419 Saundersfoot BUA 3,361 Saundersfoot - New Hedges BUASD 594 Saundersfoot - Saundersfoot BUASD 2,767 St Asaph BUA 3,355 Llanrwst BUA 3,323 Amlwch BUA 3,211 Llanfair Pwllgwyngyll BUA 3,107 Tywyn BUA 3,097 Marshfield (Newport) BUA 3,054 Marshfield (Newport) - Castleton BUASD 735 Marshfield (Newport) - Marshfield BUASD 2,319 Llanharry BUA 3,035 Knighton (Powys) BUA 3,007 Llanhilleth BUA 2,990 Porthmadog BUA 2,981 Lampeter BUA 2,970 Llanidloes BUA 2,929 Usk BUA 2,834 Builth Wells BUA 2,829 Llandybie BUA 2,813 Kidwelly BUA 2,782 Cwm BUA 2,739 Dolgellau BUA 2,688 Llanddulas/Mynydd Marian BUA 2,674 Llanddulas/Mynydd Marian - Llanddulas BUASD 1,268 Llanddulas/Mynydd Marian - Llysfaen BUASD 330 Llanddulas/Mynydd Marian - Mynydd Marian BUASD 1,076 St Clears BUA 2,663 Page 131 St Clears - Pwll-trap BUASD 674 St Clears - St Clears BUASD 1,989 Penmaenmawr BUA 2,535 Creigiau BUA 2,380 Machen BUA 2,362 Valley BUA 2,361 Cwmfelinfach/Ynysddu BUA 2,342 Cwmfelinfach/Ynysddu - Cwmfelinfach BUASD 1,383 Cwmfelinfach/Ynysddu - Ynysddu BUASD 959 Barmouth BUA 2,315 Pentyrch BUA 2,287 Y Felinheli BUA 2,284 Leeswood BUA 2,282 Rossett BUA 2,279 Narberth BUA 2,265 Gilwern BUA 2,263 Bettws BUA 2,253 Benllech BUA 2,236 Machynlleth BUA 2,235 Seven Sisters BUA 2,123 Tanyfron BUA 2,090 Resolven BUA 2,068 Llandovery BUA 2,065 Crickhowell BUA 2,063 Presteigne BUA 2,056 Southgate BUA 2,004 Page 132 3 17 21 4 1 18 20 2 13 5 15 22 6 19 23 7 12 16 26 10 27 9 11 24 30 28 29 8 14 31 35 33 25 32 37 34 38 36 42 44 41 39 40 43 46 45 49 Built up Areas with 47 48 a population greater 50 51 than 2000 52 Local Authority Boundary 53 54 55 56 61 60 62 59 57 72 63 58 71 77 70 124 142 141 78 79 123 76 120 125 140 64 65 85 73 112 121 80 86 126 69 74 75 113 122 127 66 81 87 119 117 128 67 68 111 139 1 Holyhead 114 2 Valley 84 88 95 138 89 110 115 118 129 135 3 Amlwch 94 83 109 131 130 137 4 Benllech 34 Gresford 82 116 134 108 132 5 Llangefni 35 Llay 93 104 136 6 Menai Bridge 36 Wrexham 90 96 107 7 Llanfair Pwllgwyngyll 37 Tanyfron 64 Milford Haven 92 101 133 8 Caernarfon 38 Coedpoeth 65 Neyland 91 106 105 102 9 Y Felinheli 39 Rhosllanerchrugog 66 Pembroke Dock 103 10 Bangor 40 Chirk 67 Pembroke 97 11 Bethesda 41 Llangollen 68 Tenby 91 Porthcawl 12 Llanfairfechan 42 Blaenau Ffestiniog 69 Saundersfoot 92 Bridgend 98 13 Penmaenmawr 43 Pwllheli 70 Narberth 93 Bettws 99 100 14 Llanrwst 44 Porthmadog 71 St Clears 94 Pontycymer 15 Conwy 45 Barmouth 72 Carmarthen 95 Ogmore Vale/Nant-y-moel 16 Bryn Pydew 46 Dolgellau 73 Kidwelly 96 Pencoed 114 Mountain Ash 132 Machen 17 Llandudno 47 Tywyn 74 Burry Port 97 Cowbridge 115 Ynysybwl 133 Marshfield (Newport) 18 Colwyn Bay 48 Machynlleth 75 Llanelli 98 Llantwit Major 116 Glyncoch 134 Newport (Newport) 19 Llanddulas/Mynydd Marian 49 Welshpool 76 Ammanford 99 Rhoose 117 Abercynon 135 Caerleon 20 Kinmel Bay/Abergele 50 Newtown (Powys) 77 Llandybie 100 Barry 118 Treharris 136 Undy 21 Rhyl/Prestatyn 51 Llanidloes 78 Glanaman 101 Cardiff 119 Aberfan 137 Cil-y-coed 22 Rhuddlan 52 Aberystwyth 79 Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen/Brynamman 102 Pentyrch 120 Merthyr Tydfil 138 Chepstow 23 St Asaph 53 Knighton (Powys) 80 Pontarddulais 103 Creigiau 121 Rhymney 139 Usk 24 Denbigh 54 Presteigne 81 Gorseinon 104 Church Village 122 New Tredegar 140 Monmouth 25 Ruthin 55 Llandrindod Wells 82 Southgate 105 Llantrisant 123 Tredegar 141 Abergavenny 26 Flint 56 Builth Wells 83 Murton (Swansea) 106 Llanharry 124 Ebbw Vale 142 Gilwern 27 Buckley 57 Brecon 84 Swansea 107 Brynna 125 Blaenavon 28 Broughton (Flintshire) 58 Crickhowell 85 Seven Sisters 108 Tonyrefail 126 Abertillery ML/160/13.14 29 Penyffordd 59 Llandovery 86 Glyn-neath 109 Hendreforgan/Gilfach Goch 127 Cwm © Crown copyright 2013 30 Mold 60 Lampeter 87 Resolven 110 Tonypandy 128 Llanhilleth 31 Leeswood 61 Cardigan 88 Cwmavon Page 133111 Ferndale 129 Cwmfelinfach/Ynysddu Welsh Government 32 Hope (Flintshire) 62 Fishguard 89 Maesteg 112 Hirwaun 130 Llanbradach 33 Rossett 63 Haverfordwest 90 Pyle 113 Aberdare 131 Abertridwr August 2013 Agenda Item 9 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 Partner Updates 1.0 ARRIVA TRAINS WALES 1.1 Performance Arriva Trains Wales climbed two positions to fifth of the 19 UK Train Operating Companies during this period. We are in second position in our ‘Class’ behind Merseyrail (96.3%) and ahead of Scotrail (92.1%) and Northern (91.9%). Overall PPM (Public Performance Measure) during the four week period was an excellent 96%. This is above the Group target of 95.3%. This was a big improvement on the previous period where Overall PPM (Public Performance Measure) during the four week period was 93.3%. This was below our own target of 94.9%. The most disruptive incident of a generally good period was on 5 October, when police requested services be stopped between Cardiff Queen Street and Heath Junction due to a firearms incident in the area. This incident resulted in 944 delay minutes and 31 cancellations. The full performance report can be found here. 1.2 Winter Timetable Improvements a number of improvements are planned from the beginning of the new timetable in December to help with capacity issues and new journey opportunities on certain routes. The ‘North – South’ Premier Service delivered in partnership with the Welsh Government is being retimed to an earlier departure of 1716 from Cardiff and will include additional stops en-route to Holyhead. Additional carriages will also be provided on some commuter services between Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Cardiff, in addition to selected longer distance services between Manchester and South Wales. 1.3 Transport Minister announces measures to make rail travel in Wales easier and more affordable – We are pleased to have worked alongside the Welsh Government on reviewing our fares for 2014. We are determined to continue offering affordable and value for money fares on all our routes. This year all Arriva Page 134 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 Trains Wales’ priced season tickets will increase at less than inflation, so will represent even better value for those using the train to commute to work. Further details of the Minister’s announcement can be found by going here. 1.4 ‘Love your station!’ Keep Wales Tidy Awards 2013 Arriva Trains Wales is working in partnership with Keep Wales Tidy to encourage everyone to responsibly dispose of litter and help us present a welcoming environment to passengers at stations. You can now cast your vote to choose Wales’ tidiest railway station. More than 100 of Wales’ small unstaffed stations have been adopted by volunteers and organisations as part of Arriva Trains Wales’ adopt a station initiative. Many are lovingly cared for with colourful floral displays and artwork produced by local children and young people. First impressions really do count so to have your say, go on-line and vote for Wales’ Best Kept Staffed and Unstaffed Stations. 1.5 National Assembly Enterprise and Business Committee Inquiry into the future of the Wales and Borders Franchise Arriva Trains Wales was pleased to provide evidence to the inquiry into the future of the Wales and Borders franchise and looks forward to helping with the on-going development of future opportunities for rail services in Wales and the Borders. 1.6 Marketing campaigns launched ‘Club 55’ has been running successfully, offering those over 55 years of age ‘off- peak’ tickets from £23. The offer runs until 30 November 2013. Meanwhile, ‘Advance’ fares to a number of destinations across our network are being promoted as part of the ‘Big Cities, Tiny Train Ticket’ campaign. 1.7 Chartered Institute of Public Relations PRide Cymru Awards Arriva Trains Wales was awarded Silver in the Issues and Crisis Communications Management category at the CIPR PRide awards for its handling of the Cardiff Landslip incident during London 2012. The customer communication, media relations activity during the incident, as well as the partnership working with Network Rail and others were recognised. 2.0 WELSH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (WLGA) 2.1 Active Travel (Wales) Bill The Active Travel Bill was passed by the National Assembly on 1st October following amendments which makes provision – • Requiring the Welsh Ministers and local authorities, in the performance of functions under the Highways Act 1980, to take reasonable steps to enhance the provision made for walkers and cyclists and to have regard to the needs of walkers and cyclists in the exercise of certain other functions and • Requiring the Welsh Ministers and local authorities to exercise their functions under the Act so as to promote active travel journeys and secure new and improved active travel routes and related facilities. Page 135 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 When submitting the existing route map (except the first one) local authorities must also submit to Welsh Government a report showing how the level of use of active travel routes and related facilities in the local authority’s area has changed since the previous one. Should Welsh Government decide not to approve an existing route map they can direct a local authority to revise it and to resubmit by a specified date. The Bill will receive Royal Assent in early November and could commence in the New Year although we do not yet have a fixed date. More information is athttp://www.senedd.assemblywales.org/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=5750 The Welsh Government is committed to producing guidance on the delivery of the Act and also guidance on the design of the active travel routes. The consultation draft of the delivery guidance is expected at the end of November and this will include more details on mapping and consultation requirements. The draft of the design guidance (Technical Standards & Guidelines) is expected by the end of December. 2.2 Highways Network Following the statement in July by the Minister on her intentions to review a range of routes with a view to including them as part of the Trunk Road network, WLGA understands that work on trunking and detrunking of routes is underway within WG but to date local authorities have not been part of these discussions. The review of the Highway Network was a separate workstream under the Highways & Transportation Compact and a working group involving local government had started to meet prior to the change of Minister. The Welsh Government lead on this work is Deputy Director Sheena Hague. 2.3 Learner Travel WG will be publishing a consultation document on changes to learner travel and the involvement of children in assessing the safety of walked routes to school. Welsh Government is also understood to be considering reviewing the travel behaviour code which some local authorities have concerns about as it is not considered strong enough to deal with bad behaviour. 2.4 Road Safety The All Wales Strategic Road Safety meeting is making progress in bringing strategic co-ordination to the wide range of road safety initiatives that exists. Representatives on the group are looking at how, by working in partnership, their organisations can take on resource intensive activities required for targeted campaigns on specific routes. The most recent meeting focused on motorcyclists and ways available resources could be pooled to achieve more effective outcomes in terms of casualty reduction for this high risk group. James Burgess, who led on development of the Road Safety Framework for Wales, has now moved to a new role in Welsh Government on anti-poverty. Page 136 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 3.0 PASSENGER FOCUS 3.1 Draft determination The Office of Rail Regulation determination of what the railway must achieve in 2014-2019 was published at the end of October. Stretching targets require £1.7bn savings from Network Rail, meeting challenges in the McNulty report. At the same time, delivering a railway enhancement programme of £12bn involving train operators, stakeholders and passengers in how improvements are designed and delivered. This includes dedicated funding of £109m to upgrade or close level crossings. In addition, tougher targets are included to reduce severe disruption on long distance services and contractual targets for improved reliability, such as First Great Western’s (FGW) high speed services achieving a minimum PPM of 88%. FGW must also achieve an overall PPM of 90%. Passengers want safe, reliable train services and more and longer trains to cope with rising passenger numbers. This large investment is welcome, and these industry targets should help underpin Network Rail’s plans. However, passengers will want to see these revised punctuality targets being met. 3.2 Cardiff Board Passenger Focus held a conference and evening reception at Cardiff’s Millennium Centre on Wednesday 13 November 2013. Our Board also held an open (public) meeting on Thursday 14 November in the same venue. Conference speakers included Ian Bullock, managing director, Arriva Trains Wales; Margaret Everson MBE, senior officer for Wales, Bus Users UK Cymru; David Edwards, development officer, Heart of Wales Line Forum; Nick Ramsay AM, chair of the Business and Enterprise Committee, National Assembly for Wales. Link to: Full conference programme 3.3 Franchising – Passenger Power! Passenger Focus has carried out research into what passenger want from the rail franchise process. The research findings were clear: passengers want a chance to influence what services are being purchased on their behalf, and then the operator to be held to account for what it actually delivers. Passengers feel detached from the franchise process, many would like greater engagement. The Passenger Power! agenda: • passengers should know when a franchise renewal is coming up and have an opportunity to feed in their views • when a franchise is let there should be a clear statement setting out what is being purchased for them • passengers should have a role in monitoring franchise delivery • improved dialogue with passengers should start now Page 137 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 3.4 National Assembly for Wales: consultation work One of the ways we are making sure that passengers are at the heart of franchising decisions, is our recent work with the National Assembly for Wales. We have been assisting the Assembly’s enterprise and business committee inquiry ahead of the new Wales and Borders rail franchise, which is due to start in 2018. Work included inviting rail user groups and other stakeholders to an event in Cardiff on 3 October 2013 to discuss policies and priorities for the next franchise, helping to inform the inquiry. We also gave oral evidence to the committee, following our written evidence that we had already submitted. 3.5 Passenger Focus: effective and influential? As part of our efforts to make a difference for all passengers we have been carrying out research with Passenger Focus stakeholders. We spoke to those who make decisions that affect passengers to ensure that our research evidence and policy guidance is reaching the right people. The results, which will be published shortly, will help us be more effective and influential on behalf of passengers and offer better value for money. 4.0 BUS USERS CYMRU 4.1 Activities since last Joint Committee: • Compiling the bid for funding for the year 2014-2015 • The BCOs are monitoring community transport registered services against the LKSG reimbursement element and as from 1 April 2014 they will be monitoring against agreed quality outcomes. • During the last twelve months the BCOs have monitored 30 operators and 287 services, and up to the end of September they have made 14 LKSG reports to Sewta, 5 to TraCC; 13 to SWWITCH and 6 to Taith. • Since 1st April we have dealt with 312 complaints and enquiries from surgeries. Complaints are fewer in number but greater in complexity. • The next PTUC meeting is in Cardiff on 10 December. • We are playing our full part in the National Partnership Forum for Older People in Wales (NPF) which is a ministerial advisory group. • We have responded to four regional network strategies and the Senior Traffic Commissioner's consultation paper. • We are on the RTSG quality outcomes working party and the disabled person’s passenger charter working party. • We held surgeries in Machynlleth, Blackwood, Caerphilly, Cardiff, Connah's Quay, Mold, Buckley, Holywell and Broughton as well as Pontypridd, Cardiff, Abergavenny, Newbridge, Barry, Bridgend, Ebbw Vale, Cwmbran and Merthyr Tydfil in the Sewta area. Page 138 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 • We are conducting a review of the operator, taxi operator and local authorities' actions following our Best Practice Guidance into Public Transport for People with Sensory Loss. We are asking for their actions on the recommendations contained in the Report. • We are conducting a review into the number of services that are being cut across Wales, as yet incomplete. When all the contracts come up for re-tender the final figure could be significant. • We delivered a presentation to the Sewta Regional Network Strategy planning workshop, attended the Traveline Fares Finder launch with Traveline and the Minister, spoke to the Vale 50+ transport group in Barry and delivered a paper to the Passenger Focus Board Conference in Cardiff on 13 November. • We attended the Traveline Board meeting in Llandudno on 6th November. 5.0 FIRST CYMRU 6.0 FIRST GREAT WESTERN 7.0 SUSTRANS 8.0 COMMUNITY TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION Page 139 Agenda Item 10 SWWITCH Joint Committee Meeting – 6th December 2013 Forward Meeting Dates 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SWWITCH Joint Committee was formally established in June 2005. The Committee has continued to meet on a quarterly basis since that time and this remains important so that Members can provide clear direction and direct progress. 1.2 The current timetable of meetings was agreed by Joint Committee in December 2012 and included dates up to Friday 7th June 2014. The purpose of this paper is to set forward meeting dates until mid-year 2015. This is important to ensure the meetings are included in Local Council corporate diaries and that SWWITCH partners can plan ahead. 2.0 PROPOSED FORWARD MEETING DATES 2.1 Two meeting dates for 2014 are already agreed, that is Friday 28th March and Friday 13th June 2014. 2.2 It is proposed that these two dates are retained and further dates, to complete a meeting cycle for a further year are agreed as shown in Table One below. Date Lead Authority Venue Friday 28th March 2014 Carmarthenshire CC TBC Friday 13th June 2014 Carmarthenshire CC/City & County TBC of Swansea Friday 12th September 2014 City & County of Swansea TBC Friday 12th December 2014 City & County of Swansea TBC Friday 27th March 2015 City & County of Swansea TBC Friday 12th June 2015 City & County of Swansea/Neath TBC Port Talbot County Borough Council Page 140 Agenda Item 11a December 2013 SWWITCH would like to wish you a very Happy Christmas !!!!! Striving for Success Transport is not something that people want. Unless the specific transport is a magnificent Steam engine, an impressive Ocean Liner or a top of the range exotic car, where the journey experience is to be savoured, most people want transport to provide good access to services and facilities they need and want. That is why the four south west Wales Councils got together in 1998 as a regional working group to try and plan and develop better strategic transport links to enable people, and goods to get more easily to where they wanted to go. The Councils wanted to work together on transport to support the economy of the region, to protect the environment and to support social inclusion. Those aspirations remain fundamental to what we do, the name, the logo, the website, those came long afterwards and not essential. What is important, especially with establishment of the Swansea Bay City Region is that working together as the four Councils with our range of partners and stakeholders, we don’t take our eye “off the ball” and we continue to focus on what is important. When the Minister shares her vision for the way that transport should be managed in Wales, the four Councils working together will adapt and adjust as necessary and with the same determination to focus on the needs of residents, businesses and visitors to South West Wales. Regional Network Strategy Subject to the final approval of the Joint Committee on 6th December the Regional Network Strategy will be adopted and submitted to the Welsh Government in January 2014. The strategy recommends no change to current funding mechanism for 2014/15 and urges a period of stability and commitments to regular funding streams to allow the industry to settle down following the withdrawal of £8m from the all Wales budget in 2013/14. It seems unlikely that this stability will be achieved under current financial constraints (and see below) Concessionary fare reimbursement rates It now seems likely that a review of the concessionary fares reimbursement mechanism by the Welsh Government and budgetary constraints is likely to mean a significant cut in the overall budget available for concessionary fares. Whilst this does not affect the rights of pass holders who will still have free access to buses in Wales (on any day and at any time), in practice there will probably be significantly fewer buses on which to use passes as the number of commercially viable services will reduce and prices for Local council tendered services will increase, meaning fewer can be supported. A double whammy effect. SWWITCH Contacts: Sue Miles, SWWITCH Coordinator, SWWITCH: [email protected] Simon Charles, Transport Strategy Engineer, Carmarthenshire CC: [email protected] Brian Biscoe, Transport Projects Manager, Neath Port Talbot CBC: [email protected] Ceri Rees, Transport Strategy and Project Coordinator, Pembrokeshire CC: [email protected] Ben George, Transport Strategy Officer, City & County of Swansea: [email protected] Marcus Judd, SWWITCH Liaison Officer, SWWITCH: [email protected] Jayne Cornelius, Travel Plan Coordinator, SWWITCH: [email protected] Allison Gough, Travel Plan Officer, SWWITCH: [email protected] Richard Watkins, Assistant Transport Policy Officer, SWWITCH: [email protected] Siona Masters, Bus Funding Officer, SWWITCH: [email protected] Page 141 Swansea Bay Cycle Routes [Coming Soon]: The City & County of Swansea, working with Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council to develop a newly branded network of cycle routes, with a particular emphasis on encouraging people to cycle to work. The routes will be presented in a “London tube style” map with each route being assigned a colour and average journey times also being. shown. The coloured routes will help the public to understand the available routes and will be complemented by signage along each of the routes. The coloured signage is beginning to be installed and is expected to be formally launched in early 2014. A £107m project linking Port Talbot and the docks to the M4 has been officially opened. It is hoped the three-mile (4.8km) Harbour Way running from junction 38 at Margam will boost the docks area with land being opened up for development, it would also help to cut congestion through the town. The road is one of the largest local council transport projects the Welsh Government and European Regional Development Fund has backed. Neath Port Talbot council leader Ali Thomas said. “The economic benefits will be far-reaching and indeed this investment is already beginning to pay dividends”. By linking key employment sites and opening up land for development along the waterfront, the project will present numerous opportunities for growth and regeneration. The docks area is being transformed into a new knowledge-focused business hub, creating hundreds of skilled jobs.” The Harbour Way project took three years to complete Plans are also in place for further development of the wider Harbourside Park area as the 150-acre site has the capacity to accommodate an additional 75,000 sq ft of space. It could lead to a potential investment of over £12m and creation of a further 700 new jobs. Proposals are also in the pipeline for a future residential and leisure development which will sit next to the dockside and river corridor. First Minister Carwyn Jones, who opened the road, said: "With Harbour Way now complete, and a further £9.5m of Welsh Government funding for the re-development of Port Talbot Parkway train station, robust infrastructure links will soon be in place to attract further investment to the region to transform the area into a vibrant, well connected place to live, work and do business for many years to come.“ Page 142 The Boulevard project continues to progress well with the southern shared use paths being opened in the past few weeks. While the works to reconfigure the rest of the carriageway continues as planned, the southern footway now provides a strategic link for cyclists and pedestrians through the south of the City Centre on generous 5 metre footways. The second and final Boulevard contract is expected to start in early 2014 and the scheme is expected to finish in the autumn 2014. VIEWS SOUGHT OVER FUTURE BUS SERVICES The public are being asked for their views on future bus services in Pembrokeshire. A questionnaire has been compiled by Pembrokeshire County Council’s Transport Unit to gather feedback to inform any future reorganisation of bus services. “There are over 50 local bus services operating in Pembrokeshire, of which the vast majority are subsidised by the Council” explained the Authority’s Part of the Southern Strategic Route nearing completion Cabinet Member for Highways and Major highway improvements are being carried out on the A4075 at Penny Planning, Councillor Rob Lewis. “Last Bridge, Pembroke to improve the capacity and safety of the existing road year a 25 per cent reduction in the and enhance access to the major energy sites on the southern shore of amount of Welsh Government funding the Haven. provided to the Council for bus services The scheme realigns the existing carriageway over a 450m length to meant that all subsidised Sunday and improve both the horizontal and vertical alignment. This, combined with evening bus services were removed. providing extra verge widths on both sides of the carriageway will increase Unfortunately, further savings are the forward visibility and the visibility from private accesses along the necessary so it is likely that further bus route. service cuts will be required”. The questionnaire, which asks eight key Bwcabus-ting success for rural service questions, is available in Libraries, Bwcabus is bursting the bubble of all expectations. The award winning Tourist Information Centres and Leisure rural bus service is celebrating its fourth birthday with the news it is Centres as well as on the buses becoming more and more popular. The service tailored to meet the needs themselves. It is also available on the of its passengers proves it is going from strength to strength by recording Council’s website at: 14,916 passenger journeys in the first seven months this year. That is a www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/haveyoursay remarkable 2,591 or 21per cent increase on the same period of 2012. The deadline for responses is 31st December. Bwcabus, in four years, has been responsible for 70,000 passenger journeys over nearly half-a-million-miles with its 2,000-plus registered users. The Bwcabus service is operated by Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion Local Authorities, in partnership with University of South Wales and Traveline Cymru. It is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the Welsh Government. Page 143 Cycle Station - Haverfordwest Leisure Centre The second of the town’s cycle parking facilities has been completed in Haverfordwest (see below). It is located adjacent to the Leisure Centre at St Thomas Green and provides a further 20 secure parking spaces for cycles. The need for secure and safe cycle parking in this area of the town was identified by a local Travel Planning Working Group and a STC Steering Group. Organisations such as Pembrokeshire College, the NHS, Police, schools, Chamber of Trade, Riverside Management, Sustrans etc are represented on these groups. The location was chosen because of the Bridge strengthening is key for rural area number of small business at St Thomas MAJOR strengthening works to Llangadog bridge will help expand Green and also its proximity to the transport communications in rural Carmarthenshire. The half-a-million- Leisure Centre. Changing facilities and pound scheme to the Carreg Sawdde Bridge will enable the 7.5 tonne lockers at the Leisure Centre are weight limit to be removed. The works started in July and are being available during the opening hours and carried out by TRJ (Betws) Ltd on behalf of Carmarthenshire County the facility is managed by the Leisure Council. Centre. CARMARTHENSHIRE SHORTLISTED FOR AWARDS SMT/ Demand library was shortlisted for the National Transport Award in the Most innovative transport project category. It was shortlisted into the top 5 from over 300 entries. SMT was also shortlisted for a CILT Awards in Excellence in the category for Transport Policy, Planning and Implementation. The awards were held on the 24th October at the Lancaster London Hotel where CCC were invited to represent within a strong category won by Mott McDonald for the Park & Ride planning and implementation over the London 2012 Games. The Morfa Distributor Road project is now well under way with some of the early accommodation works having been undertaken. Site clearance is expected to commence in the next few weeks as per its programme. The construction of the road is coinciding well with a number of adjacent regeneration projects including a heritage park, private residential and student accommodation. The construction of the road is expected to transform the Hafod area of the city by reducing traffic travelling through this area, while also facilitating the regeneration of the Tawe Riverside corridor. Announcements Congratulations to Richard Watkins, the SWWITCH Monitoring Officer and his partner Andrea who are Staying on…. SWWITCH welcomes celebrating the birth of their first the news that Richard Workman, child. Jake was born on Tuesday 5th Director of Technical Services at November weighing 6lbs and 13ozs. Carmarthenshire County Council is Both Mother and baby are doing well, staying with the Authority for a further a happy start to the festive period! 6 months. Richard was due to retire at the end of December 2013 SWWITCH welcomes Siona Masters to the team. Siona takes Farewell…with regrets (us and over the Bus Funding Officer role not him!). SWWITCH would like to vacated by Brendan Griffiths who wish Chris Vinestock, Head of was seconded to SWWITCH from Transportation at the City and Pembrokeshire CC and then County of Swansea the very best for Neath Port Talbot CBC. Siona the future with news that Chris is previously worked with the City moving on to take up a Directors and County of Swansea’s post with the Services Ombudsman. transportation department. Page 144 Agenda Item 11b REGIONAL TRANSPORT PLAN FOR SOUTH WEST WALES 2010 - 2015 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2012/13 Page 145 CONTENTS Section Content Page No. Foreword 2 Executive Summary 3 One Transport Policy and Planning 9 Two Capital spend 15 Three Revenue spend 18 Four Monitoring 20 Five Supporting information 23 Plans One RTP projects 2012/13 7 Two Road Safety Capital projects 2012/13 8 Figures One Link between the 2012/13 Programme Delivery and RTP 13 vision and objectives Two Link between NTP/RTP priorities and the 2012/13 capital 16 programme Tables One SWWITCH Traffic Levels 2009 - 2012 11 Two 2012/13 RTP Delivery – Allocation and spend by project and 14 link to 2013/13 programme Three Progress of 2012/13 projects through Key Stages and 18 Gateways Four SWWITCH Revenue budgets 2012/13 19 Five Link between transport priorities and functions supported by 21 revenue funding Appendices One Programme Management and 2012/13 Delivery Two Synergy between the RTP and national and regional strategies Three Wales Bus Funding Review Four South West Wales Regional Economic strategy and City Regions development Five Transport Related Air Quality Problems in SWWITCH Six SWWITCH Community Transport Capital Enhancement Grant Seven RTP links to Local Development Plans Eight Road Safety Revenue Projects Nine RTP monitoring Ten Civil Parking Enforcement reports Eleven Collaborative Working Twelve Decision Making processes Front Page Photographs Top left: Access to Kenfig project Top right: Clydach Connect 2 cycle/pedestrian bridge Bottom left: Cross Hands Economic Link Road – Phase 1a Bottom right: Bike Mobility scheme users in Haverfordwest 1 Page 146 FOREWORD The South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium (SWWITCH) is pleased to produce the third Annual Progress Report (APR) on the Regional Transport Plan (RTP). It is required by the Welsh Government to explain the uses and benefits of the Regional Transport Consortium Grant (RTCG) and it is also important for stakeholders, to provide an update on changes made and progress achieved during the 2012/13 financial year. This APR has been prepared in accordance with guidance issued by the Welsh Government. SWWITCH wants the document to be easy to follow and so, as far as is possible, background material and detail is included separately in appendices. The Appendices will be available on the website and in hard copy on request. SWWITCH welcomes any comments on this report or the appendices, which can be forwarded to the SWWITCH Co-ordinator using the contact details shown on the SWWITCH website: www.swwitch.net The APR does not re-write the RTP or change the main emphasis of the Plan. It is intended to provide a summary of: x Changes relevant to the plan and updates on policy or programme developments x Confirm how capital and revenue grant funding have been used and what differences the funding has made x Look ahead to 2014/15, the last year of the current RTP SWWITCH Joint Committee Voting Members Councillor Colin Evans Councillor June Burtonshaw SWWITCH Chair 2013/14 Councillor Sandra Miller Councillor Rob Lewis 2 Page 147 E1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E1.1 Transport Policy and Planning Context Since the 2011/12 Annual Progress Report (APR) was submitted in September 2012 there have been a number of internal and external changes as follows: x The Collaboration agenda x Bus funding review x The emergence of proposals to establish a City Region x The evolution of the Active Travel Bill x Continued financial pressures and the impact on Council resources E1.2 The RTP remains fundamentally unchanged and still provides the strategic framework for improving access in South West Wales. The RTP link to and synergy with national strategies and plans for transport and with each Council’s strategic planning process remains. E1.3 RTP Progress in 2012/13 Plan One on Page Seven shows the RTP delivery in 2012/13 and Table E.1 provides a summary of RTP spend. There were some changes to actual schemes and project values in comparison with the original Delivery Plan submission and some additional funding was allocated in year. All changes were agreed with Welsh Government through the SWWITCH Programme Management Group (PMG) and full details of the changes are included in Appendix One. Table E.1 – Summary of RTP spend 2012/13 Project Original Final Match funding RAG allocation spend (£k) status (£k) (£k) Amman Valley Cycleway 200 303 Carms Walking and Cycling linkages 150 240 Boulevard project 200 455 1,260 – ERDF, RA Completion of National Cycle Network 10 10 Haverfordwest Sustainable Towns Concept 20 20 Carmarthen to Swansea Bus Corridor 100 106 Ammanford to Cross Hands Bus Corridor 150 379 Haverfordwest to Tenby via Narberth corridor 170 218 Port Talbot to Swansea Bus Corridor 450 102 Carmarthenshire Rural Interchanges 200 155 Port Talbot Central Interchange 200 4 Swansea City Bus Station 384 384 Community Transport Capital Grant 50 39 Fabian Way Bus corridor 50 42 Pembroke Dock Interchange 50 65 Milford Haven Interchange 100 99 Llanelli Railway Station 50 49 Waterston and Blackbridge 700 656 Cross Hands Economic Link Road 250 265 750 - ERDF Wind St. Tir y Dial Lane junction 150 14 Morfa Road 250 750 Glasfryn Rd Improvements, St. David’s 20 20 Programme Management and Monitoring 110 121 Fishguard & Goodwick Stn 0 74 Access to Kenfig 0 840 3 Page 148 Project Original Final Match funding RAG allocation spend (£k) status (£k) (£k) Connect 2 cycle scheme 0 20 566 – EU/ Big lottery Afan Connect 2 Signing 0 30 Route Enhancements 0 100 TOTAL 4,014 5,560 Where RAG status indicates RED AMBER GREEN Project did not progress as set out Project was delivered/progressed Project was delivered as set out in the delivery plan and funding but with changes or significant in the delivery plan and at or near was moved to other projects cost increases budget E1.4 For RTP projects commenced, progressed and/or delivered in 2012/13 headlines are as follows: x Completion and opening of the Access to Kenfig Scheme x Completion of the Fishguard & Goodwick station project x Opening of the refurbished Ammanford Bus Station x Phase 1a of the Cross Hands Economic Link Road completed x Opening of the Clydach Connect 2 cycle link in Swansea E 1.5 Plan Two on Page Eight shows Road Safety Capital delivery on 2012/13 and Table E.2 provides a summary of Road Safety (RS) capital spend. There were few changes to actual schemes and project values in comparison with the Delivery Plan submission. However, some additional funding was allocated in year on the basis of particular priorities identified by the Welsh Government. Table E.2 – Summary of Road Safety capital spend 2012/13 Projects Original Allocation Final spend RAG (£k) (£k) status Carms CC Pedestrian safety schemes 40 40 Road Safety Measures outside schools 90 90 Speed Management 9 9 Route Treatment 145 145 20mph limit Llanelli 0 48 NPT CBC Route Treatment 146 146 Speed Management 7 7 20mph limit Aberavon 0 48 Pembs CC Route Treatment 107 112 Pedestrian Safety Schemes 15 16 Speed Management 39 31 Signage 5 7 C & C of Swansea Pedestrian Safety Schemes 15 4 Road Safety Measures outside schools 20 16 Route Treatment 230 263 Speed Management & cameras 32 22 Signage 34 37 20mph limit St. Thomas 0 38 TOTAL 934 1,079 Where RAG status is on the same basis as for Table E.1 E1.6 Table E.3 below provides a summary of Road Safety (RS) revenue spend in 4 Page 149 2012/13. There were some changes to actual schemes and project values in comparison with the Delivery Plan submission. These were discussed with relevant Welsh Government Officers and approved by SWWITCH PMG prior to changes being made. In additions a small sum of extra funding was allocated in year on the basis of priorities identified by the Welsh Government. Table E.3 – Summary of Road Safety revenue spend 2012/13 Projects Original Allocation Final spend RAG (£k) (£k) status Education 170 172 Training 154 177 Publicity 67 88 Staff costs 193 155 TOTAL 584 592 Where RAG status is on the same basis as for Table E.1 E1.7 Table E.4 below provides a summary of RTP revenue spend for 2012/13. Table E.4 – Summary of RTP revenue spend 2012/13 SWWITCH Core Allocation Spend RAG SWWITCH STC Allocation Spend RAG Team support (£k) (£k) status revenue support (£k) (£k) status Staff costs 101 102 Staff costs 62.3 65.8 IT 1 1.7 IT 5.5 1 Operational costs 10.5 3.6 Operational costs 5.2 5 Commissions 12.5 17 TOTAL 125 124.3 TOTAL 73 71.8 Where RAG status is on the same basis as for Table E.1 E1.8 During 2012/13 the SWWITCH Travel Plan Co-ordinator continued to work directly for the Welsh Government for two days per week and this was reflected in additional funding to employ a Travel Plan officer to “backfill” the co- ordinator’s work. E1.9 Key outputs and benefits – The RTP spend during 2012/13 has allowed progress on delivering the RTP to continue. Capital spending has supported the development and delivery of a range of schemes aimed at improving access for residents, visitors and businesses, to, from and within the region. The improved access helps to facilitate economic regeneration and development in South West Wales and supports increasing social inclusion as vulnerable groups can more easily access services and facilities which support productive and fulfilling lives. E1.10 Revenue spend has supported the: x continuing development of transport strategy and policy and facilitated the management of the capital programme x work with private and public sector bodies on behavioural change and sustainable transport options to work and training x work with a broad range of vulnerable road users to stimulate awareness of the potential road safety issues and to encourage more responsible use of roads by all modes E1.11 A summary of key outputs from 2012/13 is: x Active Travel schemes – new sections of pedestrian/cycle routes opened 5 Page 150 at Amman Valley, Pembrey Canal, Carmarthen Riverside, Clydach connect 2 x Bus schemes – improved passenger waiting facilities provided on the following bus strategic corridors; Haverfordwest to Tenby, Carmarthen to Swansea, Ammanford to Cross Hands x Integration – Schemes to improve the integration between modes were implemented including Carmarthenshire Rural Interchanges and the Boulevard project in Swansea x Rail – Final Completion of Fishguard & Goodwick station, preparations for future rail station improvements were undertaken at Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and Llanelli x Highways – the Access to Kenfig scheme was completed facilitating access by Heavy Goods Vehicles to Kenfig Industrial Estate, Phase 1a of Cross Hands Economic Link road was completed and early stage preparations for the Waterston/Blackbridge and Morfa Road Schemes were undertaken x Road Safety – a range of engineering interventions outside schools, at locations with a high rate of collisions and casualties and to reduce inappropriate vehicle speed and education, training and publicity schemes with a range of vulnerable users E1.12 The outputs from the SWWITCH capital and revenue spend are helping to deliver the South West Wales contribution to the National Transport Plan and also supporting the Programme for Government aims, especially in terms of economic regeneration and reducing social exclusion. E1.13 Monitoring – SWWITCH has continued to monitor progress and outputs in accordance with the RTP revised monitoring action plan. There was insufficient funding in 2012/13 to undertake a SWWITCH Travel Pattern Survey and so some of the more detailed information which supports the measurement and evaluation of outcomes of the investment cannot be updated for 2012/13. E1.14 However, part of the 2013/14 capital spend will include a Travel Pattern Survey and this will provide an in depth picture of the modes that people use for what purposes they travel, what alternatives they had and users opinions on a range of transport options. E1.15 Key monitoring facts are as follows: x 21 out of the 30 indicators cannot be updated for this APR as there are no published or available data sources at this time (the SWWITCH Travel Pattern Research is essential to update some indicators) x 9 indicators have been successfully updated with new data, 6 indicators have improved, 1 is neutral and 2 have declined (still waiting others) E1.16 Extensive scheme data has been collated and analysed and is included in Appendices to the RTP. There is a strong correlation between RTP and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) monitoring and to avoid duplication the SEA monitoring has been incorporated into the reporting on RTP monitoring E1.17 Scheme level monitoring has also been carried on appropriate schemes. 6 Page 151 Page 152 7 Page 153 8 1.0 TRANSPORT POLICY AND PLANNING CONTEXT 1.1 Introduction The Regional Transport Plan (RTP) for South West Wales was prepared between 2006 and 2009, in accordance with guidance issue by the Welsh Government. It was intended to support the Welsh Transport Strategy and National Transport Plan for Wales and also to align with other strategic plans at a national and regional level. The synergy between the RTP and National and Regional Strategies and plans is shown in Appendix Two. 1.2 The RTP was developed through extensive and prolonged engagement with a broad range of stakeholders. Following the adoption (by SWWITCH Councils) and approval (by Welsh Government) of the RTP, stakeholders have continued to play a key part in the delivery of the plan through participation at Joint Committee and through more informal contact and engagement. 1.3 Delivery of RTP projects began in April 2010, with the introduction of the new Regional Transport Grant (now Regional Transport Consortia Grant - RTCG). Each year SWWITCH submits a Delivery Plan to the Welsh Government, in line with guidance issued, to allow a range of projects to be delivered. The project delivery alongside strategy and policy development are the focus of the Annual Progress Report (APR) process. 1.4 This is the third SWWITCH APR and it relates to the 2012/13 financial year. Photographs 1& 2: Language and play and Junior road Safety Club –two Road Safety Revenue projects 1.5 Changes in the last year Since the last APR was submitted there have been a number of changes as follows: x The Collaboration agenda x Bus funding review x The emergence of proposals to establish a City Region in South West Wales x The evolution of the Active Travel Bill x Continued financial pressures and the impact on Council resources, including staff and funding 1.6 In the 2011/12 APR SWWITCH reported on the development of even more collaboration in the region and across Wales as a result of the “Simpson Page9 154 Compact”. This work continued apace throughout 2012/13 with a strong focus on working across democratic boundaries and tiers of governance to identify problems with current working arrangements and suggest a strategic framework and governance model within which a step change in collaborative working could come to fruition. 1.7 During the 2012/13 a bus funding review began, driven by the Welsh Government working with the public sector and bus and community transport operators and user organisations. The review was started in recognition that public sector funding for public transport was going to reduce and there was a need to ensure that funding provided would help to drive up the quality of services available and encourage more fare paying passengers in the longer term. 1.8 SWWITCH was fully engaged in the bus funding review process and further details are included in Appendix Three Photographs 3 &4:Progress on the Amman Valley Cycleway – new sections of route opened 1.9 In late 2011, the Welsh Government established a group, chaired by Dr Elizabeth Heywood to look at the options for a City Region approach in Wales. The Group’s recommendations were submitted to the Minister in July 2012 and the key recommendation for SWWITCH was that a City Region should be established in the Swansea Bay area. 1.10 This recommendation coincided with the commissioning by the four SWWITCH Councils of a regional Economic Regeneration Strategy and SWWITCH was involved in stakeholders events associated with the stages of developing the strategy. 1.11 It was originally proposed that the Swansea Bay City Region would include the Councils of Swansea and Neath Port Talbot and the more urban areas of Carmarthenshire. However, in view of the maturity of the joint working already established in the region and the appropriateness of including the Haven Enterprise Zone (the only Enterprise Zone in South West Wales), it has subsequently been agreed that the City Region boundary will be the same as the SWWITCH boundary. Further detail on the Regional Economic Strategy and the City Regions report are included in Appendix Four. 10 Page 155 1.12 The Welsh Government launched a White Paper on an Active Travel Bill for Wales in May 2012. This was intended to increase the numbers of people walking and cycling (with the resulting health and well-being benefits) by placing duties on Local Councils. These duties involve mapping out existing walking and cycling routes and then working with stakeholders to map out more and improved routes to be developed over a period of time. 1.13 During the rest of the 2012/13 financial year, SWWITCH was actively engaged in various consultation events on the Active Travel Bill, as part of key stakeholders groups which helped to shape the Bill and supporting guidance and also in responding to various consultations that have arisen. 1.14 Ongoing financial pressures – are a national and global issue and they have continued to impact on the RTP delivery over the last year in a number of ways: x The overall budget available from the Welsh Government for transport across Wales has been significantly lower than for the 5 years preceding the introduction of regional funding. This means that expectations for even the “do minimum” level of the SWWITCH RTP delivery have not been achieved and understandably outputs and outcomes are less than predicted x Local Councils have also had a squeeze on funding and many competing demands around Education and Social Care. Funding from Councils for both capital and revenue support for transport has been reducing year on year x Local Councils have also reduced staffing levels, both through encouraging voluntary redundancies and by not replacing staff who retire or move to other posts. This has had a real impact on the capability and capacity of Local Councils to progress policies and proposals to deliver improved access x A slow reduction in the commercial bus service network has continued and this was mirrored at the end of the 2012/13 year by a reduction in public sector subsidised services following reductions in Welsh Government funding 1.15 Other current issues Traffic levels in South West Wales (and indeed Wales as a whole) continue to show a slight decline as shown in Table One below. This is not equal across SWWITCH. Table One – SWWITCH Traffic Levels 2009 – 2012 Billion vehicle Kilometres travelled Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 Carmarthenshire 1.89 1.86 1.84 1.83 Neath Port Talbot 1.32 1.27 1.30 1.29 Pembrokeshire 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.04 Swansea 1.66 1.63 1.63 1.62 Wales 27.49 26.98 26.93 26.76 1.16 Despite lower traffic levels, transport related air quality problems remain an issue as set out in Appendix Five. 11 Page 156 1.17 Community Transport Capital Enhancement Grant (CEG) – As for 2011/12 SWWITCH allocated a small sum of capital funding (£50k) for Community Transport Operators. There was a formal bidding process and SWWITCH worked with the Community Transport Association (CTA) to assess submissions and propose recommendations. 1.18 Community Transport organisations bid for and spent £38k in 2012/13. That funding has made a difference to the capabilities of organisations over the last year and this has meant more and happier users of the services. Full details of the SWWITCH CEG for 2012/13 are included in Appendix Six Photographs 5 & 6: Community Transport vehicles supported by SWWITCH Capital Enhancement Grant in 2012/13. 1.19 Linkages with Strategic Planning – Whilst the timescales for the adoption of Local Development Plans (LDPs), differs widely across the region, SWWITCH has been actively engaged in the various development process to ensure good synergy with the RTP and the programme pool projects. More information on the evolving LDPs and other relevant plans/strategies is set out in Appendix Seven. 1.20 Summary – There have been significant changes since the RTP was prepared and submitted and the pace of change will increase as the public and private sector strive to deliver more with less. However, the RTP vision, objectives and long term strategy still provide a strong foundation for the region by facilitating the development of a vibrant and more equal economy and improving access to a wide range of life enhancing facilities and services. 1.21 Figure One on Page 13 shows the link between the 2012/13 RTCG spend and the RTP vision and objectives. 12 Page 157 Figure One – Link between the 2012/13 Programme Delivery and RTP vision and objectives Our Vision for South West Wales is to improve transport and access within and beyond the region to facilitate economic development and the development and use of more sustainable and healthier modes of transport Project RTP Objectives supported 1. To improve access for all to a wide range of services and facilities including employment and business, education and Amman Valley Cycleway 1/2/5/6/7 training, health care, tourism and leisure activities Walking and Cycling linkages 1/2/5/6/7 Boulevard 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 2. To improve the sustainability of transport by improving the Completion of National Cycle Network 1/2/3/5/6/7 range and quality of, and awareness about, transport options, Haverfordwest Sustainable Towns Concept 1/2/3/5/6/7 including those which improve health and well being Carmarthen to Swansea Bus Corridor 1/2/3/4/5/6 Ammanford to Cross Hands Bus Corridor 1/2/3/4/5/6 3. To improve the efficiency and reliability of the movement of Haverfordwest to Tenby via Narberth corridor 1/2/3/4/5/6 people and freight within and beyond South West Wales to support the regional economy Page 158 Port Talbot to Swansea Bus Corridor 1/2/3/4/5/6 Carmarthenshire Rural Interchanges 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 4. To improve integration between policies, service provision Port Talbot Central Interchange 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 and modes of transport in South West Wales Swansea City Bus Station 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 Community Transport Capital Grant 1/2/4 5. To implement measures which make a positive contribution Fabian Way Bus corridor 1/2/3/4/5/6 to improving air quality and reducing the adverse impact of Pembroke Dock Interchange 1/2/3/4 transport on health and climate change, including reducing Milford Haven Interchange 1/2/3/4 carbon emissions Llanelli Railway Station 1/2/3/4 Waterston and Blackbridge 1/3/7 6. To implement measures which help to reduce the negative Cross Hands Economic Link Road 1/3/7 impact of transport across the region on the natural and built Wind St. Tir y Dial Lane junction 1/3/7 environment including biodiversity Morfa Road 1/3/7 Glasfryn Rd Improvements, St. David’s 1/3/7 7. To improve road safety and personal security in South West Fishguard & Goodwick Stn 1/2/3/4 Wales Access to Kenfig 1/3/7 Road Safety Capital Route treatments 1/3/5/7 Pedestrian safety schemes 1/3/5/7 Speed Management & Cameras 1/3/5/7 Signage 1/7 Measures outside schools 1/3/5/7 13 Table Two – 2012/13 RTP Delivery – Allocation and spend by project and link to 2013/14 programme Project Project 2012/13 2012/13 Match funding 2013/14 status original Final (£k) Allocation allocation allocation (additional to (£k) (£k) (£k) RTP spend) Amman Valley Cycleway PD/W 200 303 390 Carms Walking and Cycling linkages W 150 240 500(various routes) Boulevard W 200 455 1,260 – ERDF, RA 170 Completion of NCN PCC PW 10 10 55 Haverfordwest Sustainable Towns Concept (phase2) PW 20 20 80 Carmarthen to Swansea Bus Corridor W 100 106 125 Ammanford to Cross Hands Bus Corridor W 150 379 50 Haverfordwest to Tenby via Narberth corridor PD/W 170 218 585 Port Talbot to Swansea Bus Corridor PD/W 450 102 830 Carmarthenshire Rural Interchanges W 200 155 70 Port Talbot Central Interchange PD 200 4 - Swansea City Bus Station W 384 384 - Page 159 Community Transport Capital Grant W 50 39 65 Fabian Way Bus corridor PW 50 42 160 (C&W not bus) Pembroke Dock Interchange W 50 65 50 Milford Haven Interchange PD 100 99 92 Llanelli Railway Station PW 50 49 50 Waterston and Blackbridge PD 700 656 - Cross Hands Economic Link Road W 250 265 750 - ERDF 150 Wind St. Tir y Dial Lane junction W 150 14 50 Morfa Road PW/PD/W 250 750 580 Glasfryn Rd Improvements, St. David’s PW 20 20 27 Programme Management & Monitoring N/A 110 121 210 Fishguard & Goodwick Stn W 0 74 - Access to Kenfig W 0 840 - Connect 2 cycle scheme W 0 20 566 – Big Lottery - Afan connect 2 Signing W 0 30 - Route enhancements W 0 100 - TOTAL 4,014 5,560 2,576 14 2.0 CAPITAL SPEND 2012/13 2.1 RTP – SWWITCH was allocated £4.014m in 2012/13. This funding was fully spent and an additional £1.546m was made available by Welsh Government towards the end of the financial year, bring the overall total spend to £5.560m. 2.2 Within that total there were a number of changes to project proposals and spend in comparison to what was set out in the Delivery Plan. Plan One on Page Seven shows the location of the 2012/13 RTP projects and Table Two on Page 14 shows the original and final allocations by project. This also shows where match funding was available. 2.3 Further details on individual projects, explanations for changes to allocation, photographs and plans where applicable are included in Appendix One. 2.4 RS Capital – SWWITCH was allocated £0.934m in 2012/13. This funding was fully spent and an additional £0.145m was made available by the Welsh Government towards the end of the financial year, bringing the total spend to £1.079m. Photographs 7&8: Schemes in Pembrokeshire and Swansea funded through the SWWITCH Road Safety capital allocation 2.5 Further details are included in Appendix One. A wide range of engineering techniques were used to address road safety issues including: x Vehicle Activated signs x Traffic islands x Carriageway markings x Anti-skid treatment and Signing and lining 2.6 Synergy between the Capital Programme and Strategic Priorities is demonstrated on Figure Two on Page Sixteen. There is a clear link between national and regional aspirations and priorities as the RTP and the National Transport Plan were developed alongside each other and both seek to deliver the Wales Transport Strategy. 2.7 Transport Improvements which are not RTP funded – some transport projects in the RTP programme were developed in 2012/13 without RTCG. This includes Sustainable Travel Centres in Haverfordwest and Carmarthen Town, Bulford Road Link, Port Talbot Parkway Station redevelopment and Harbour Way. 15 Page 160 Figure Two – Link between NTP/RTP priorities and the 2012/13 Capital Programme Integrated Transport projects Boulevard Carmarthen to Swansea Bus corridor National Transport Plan Priorities Ammanford to Cross Hands Bus corridor 1. Sustainable Travel Centres Haverfordwest to Tenby Bus corridor 2 Transport Planning improvements Port Talbot to Swansea Bus corridor NTP 1/2/3/4/6/10/11 3 Increasing healthy and sustainable Haverfordwest Sustainable Towns RTP 3/4/5/6/7 travel choices Concept 4. Improving local bus services Carmarthenshire rural interchanges 5. Improving rail services Port Talbot Central interchange 6. Improving access to key sites and Swansea Bus Station services Community Transport Capital grant 7. Managing road infrastructure 8 Improving safety of the road network 9. Improving sustainability of freight Walking & cycling projects transport Amman Valley Cycleway 10. Improving the sustainability of Carms Walking & Cycling Linkages transport infrastructure and reducing NTP 1/2/3/6/8/11 environmental effects Completion of NCN network Pembs RTP 1/4/5/7 Fabian Way corridor 11. Strategic road, rail, bus, Connect 2 cycle scheme interchange and walking & cycling Afan Connect 2 signing projects Rail projects Pembroke Dock Interchange NTP 2/ 3/4/5/6/8/11 Milford Haven Interchange RTP 2/3/4/5/6/7 Llanelli Station RTP Strategy Fishguard & Goodwick station 1. Improving land use and transportation planning 2. Improving strategic east west road and rail links Highways projects 3. Improving strategic bus corridors Waterston & Blackbridge NTP 6/7/8/10/11 4. Promoting integration Cross Hands Economic Link Road RTP 2/3/7/8 5. Improving safety in transport Wind St, Tir Y Dial Lane Junction 6. Providing more and better Morfa Road information Glasfryn Road Improvements 7. Improving linkages between key Access to Kenfig settlements and strategic employment sites 8. Improving the efficiency of the highway network Road Safety projects Route treatment Speed management NTP 6/7/8/10 Signage RTP 5/7/8 Measures outside schools Speed cameras 16 Page 161 2.8 These projects are an integral part of the SWWITCH vision and objectives for improved transport in the region and support both the strategic east west movement of people and freight and the drive towards more sustainable travel in our town centres. 2.9 In addition SWWITCH (via Swansea as host financial Authority) bid for NSIP+ funding in 2011 to improve access to smaller stations in south west Wales. The bid was successful and the main body of work and improvements really began in 2012/13. The total value of the NSIP+ bid is £896k and the stations are mainly in Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire with some improvements at “Swanline” stations in Neath Port Talbot. 2.10 Preparatory Works projects – From 2012/13 onwards preparatory works projects have been dealt with in a different way to previous years. Instead of identifying and recording preparatory works separately, they are an integral part of the programme. All project have been classified into three categories as follows: x Preparatory works (PW) where projects at an early stage can be developed further through surveys, outline design and consultation, development of costs and risk registers etc x Pre Delivery (PD) where detailed designs are prepared and land and statutory undertaker issues are resolved and planning permission (where required) is achieved x Works (W) where construction is ready to begin as soon as funding is secured and contracts are awarded 2.11 In practice, as many projects in the 2012/13 programme were relatively small scale, there were a number of projects which included at least two and sometimes three of these stages within the year. The status of projects is shown on column two in Table Two on Page Fourteen. 2.12 This Table also shows the clear link between the 2012/13 programme and the current year delivery with a number of projects continuing to develop through various stages towards final completion and delivery as and when funds allow. Photographs 9 &10: Bus stop improvements in Pembrokeshire funded through RTCG 2.13 Managing RTP Project progress – Table Three on Page Eighteen shows the progress of 2012/13 RTP projects in through the key stages and gateways. Progress has been slower than SWWITCH hoped, mainly due to the level of funding available. This inevitably means that even relatively simple projects are 17 Page 162 delivered in stages over a few years rather in one year. Notwithstanding this, clear progress is being made every year. The Key Stages are as follows: Key Stage 1 Identification of problem, WelTAG stage 1 and coarse options Key Stage 2 Detailed options appraisal and further WelTAG development Key Stage 3 Develop detailed design of project Key Stage 4 Statutory processes Key Stage 5 Contractor selection Key Stage 6 Award of contract Key Stage 7 Opening and handover Key Stage 8 Project completion Table Three – Progress of 2012/13 projects through Key Stages and Gateways Project KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Amman Valley Cycleway P P P P P P Carms Walking and Cycling linkages P P P P Boulevard Completion of NCN PCC Haverfordwest Sustainable Towns Concept Carmarthen to Swansea Bus Corridor P P P P P Ammanford to Cross Hands Bus Corridor P P P Haverfordwest to Tenby via corridor Port Talbot to Swansea Bus Corridor P ramme Carmarthenshire Rural Interchanges g P P P P P P 3 4 5 ro y y y Port Talbot Central Interchange p Swansea City Bus Station Gatewa Gatewa Fabian Way Bus corridor Gatewa Gateway 1 & 2 into RTP Pembroke Dock Interchange y P Milford Haven Interchange Entr Llanelli Railway Station Waterston and Blackbridge Cross Hands Economic Link Road P P P P P P Wind St. Tir y Dial Lane junction Morfa Road Glasfryn Rd Improvements, St. David’s Fishguard & Goodwick Stn Access to Kenfig Connect 2 cycle scheme Where P denotes a project which has several elements, not all of which have achieved the KSA or gateway 3.0 REVENUE SPEND 2012/13 3.1 Revenue spend in 2012/13 included: x £584 Road Safety funding x £125k for core consortia funding x £75k for supporting the development of Travel Plans and sustainable transport options 18 Page 163 3.2 Road Safety Revenue funding A number of Road Safety Education projects have been developed and managed collaboratively across the region since 2011/12 and in 2012/13 more than 50% of the allocation was managed in this way. 3.3 An additional sum of £7.5k was made available at the end of the 2012/13 financial year and this was used to support the National Cycle Standards training. 3.4 Full details of Road Safety revenue spend and the benefits of working collaboratively are set out in Appendix Eight. Key areas of activity were: x Children’s Traffic Club and Junior Road Safety Officers x National Standards Cycle Training x Theatre in Education, Publicity campaigns and Radio Advertising x Pass Plus Cymru and Drive for Life x Bike Safe, Dragon rider and First Bike on Scene x Staffing 3.5 SWWITCH Revenue Funding The revenue allocation in 2012/13 was £198k, comprising: x £125k for SWWITCH core funding x £73k for the SWWITCH Travel Plan team (which was allocated as part of Sustainable Travel centres funding) Table Four below shows the original and actual budget spend for both the above elements. 3.6 As for the previous year, the Travel Plan funding supported not only the Travel Plan Co-ordinator, but a Travel Plan Officer in recognition of the fact that the SWWITCH Travel Plan Co-ordinator was working at least two days per week at an All wales level. 3.7 Core and Travel Plan revenue funding continued to be an important part of planning and delivering RTP and other transport improvements in 2012/13. Table Four – SWWITCH Revenue budgets (Core and Travel Plan) 2012/13 SWWITCH Core Team Allocation Spend SWWITCH STC revenue Allocation Spend support (£k) (£k) support (£k) (£k) Staff costs 101 102 Staff costs 62.3 65.8 IT 1 1.7 IT 5.5 1 Operational costs 10.5 3.6 Operational costs 5.2 5 Commissions 12.5 17 TOTAL 125 124.3 TOTAL 73 71.8 3.8 The SWWITCH core funding also supports the overall RTP programme management with the SWWITCH Co-ordinator and Liaison Officer dedicating approximately 40% and 30%respecitively on programme management. 3.9 Table Five on Page Twenty One shows the link between all the SWWITCH revenue funding (Core, Travel Plan and Road Safety) and the strategic priorities of the RTP and the NTP. This demonstrates the value for money achieved for a small revenue fund. 19 Page 164 3.10 SWWITCH core funding is not used to programme manage individual RTP projects. That is carried out by experienced Local Council officers who project manage schemes wholly within their Council boundaries and work collaboratively across Council boundaries to deliver strategic schemes. 3.11 It is inevitable that some RTP capital schemes delivered in 2012/13 have ongoing revenue implications, generally (but not always) related to maintenance. Each Council has taken on these commitments as part of accepting the capital grant. 4.0 MONITORING UPDATE 4.1 The (revised) SWWITCH Monitoring Plan is still valid for 2012/13, albeit there are still uncertainties (common across Wales) about some environmental monitoring and indicators. These may not be practical to measure over the 5 year lifetime of the current RTP. 4.2 In addition, there was insufficient funding in 2012/13 to undertake a Travel Pattern survey. This means that a number of the Monitoring Plan indicators could not be directly measured. There are a few proxies that are available, but it does leave a significant gap in the SWWITCH monitoring update. 4.3 The full details of the RTP monitoring are set out in Appendix Nine and “headline” outputs are as follows: x 9 out of 30 indicators have been successfully updated with new data x 21 out of 30 indicators cannot be updated as there are no published or available data sources (3 of these require a methodology to be finalised) 4.4 There is crossover between a number of the SEA indicators and the RTP indicators. The former have been incorporated into the Monitoring Plan accordingly to avoid duplication. Where indicators have been successfully updated, their performance against the baseline has been considered and results are summarised below. 4.5 Improved indicators: x 3B – Percentage of rail services which operate within 10 minutes of schedule - Network rail data indicates little or no change in the reliability of services when considering average network performance over the year but a positive change in respect of the public performance measure x 5C – Greenhouse emissions from transport - CO2 emissions have decreased for all transport types in all four local authorities x 7A – Number of fatal collisions - There has been a reduction from 32 fatal casualties in the 2009 baseline year to 20 in 2012 x 7C – Number of children killed or seriously injured - There has been a reduction from 38 children killed or seriously injured in the 2009 baseline year to 14 in 2012 20 Page 165 Table Five– Link between transport priorities and functions supported by revenue funding NTP and RTP priorities Function supported by revenue funding Transport Funding Management, Scheme Programme Financial Collaboration External planning applications administration development management Management partnerships Improving land use and transportation planning Sustainable Travel Centres, increasing healthy and sustainable travel choices Promote integration Provide more and better information Improving rail services Page 166 Improving strategic bus corridors and local bus services Improving access to key sites and services including strategic employment sites Improving the sustainability of freight transport Improving the sustainability of transport infrastructure and reducing environmental effects Improving the efficiency of the highway network and managing the road infrastructure Improving safety in transport and the safety of the road network Strategic road, rail, bus, interchange and walking and cycling projects 21 x 7D – Combined rate of death and seriously injured for pedestrians and cyclists per distance travelled - There has been a 9.5% increase in miles walked per pedestrian KSI casualty and a 24% increase in miles cycled per cyclist KSI casualty x 7G – Number of crimes per 100,000 rail passenger journeys - Statistics indicate a general decrease in the level of crime occurring on the railways and at stations 4.6 Neutral Indicators: x 2E – Percentage of people aged 60+ issued with a bus pass as a proportion of the 60+ population - There has been a very slight reduction against the baseline year of 2009/10 from 87.8% to 87.3% x 6A – Proportion of transport schemes having a positive impact on the natural and built environment - The WelTAG assessments indicate that 62% of RTP schemes will have an overall positive impact on the natural and built environment (new baseline) x 7B – Number of serious collisions - There has been a negligible increase in the number of serious collisions from 224 in 2009 to 225 in 2012 Photographs 11 & 12: Pembs CC electric vehicle charging point and the SWWITCH Travel Plan awards 2013 4.7 Indicators for which no update can be provided in 2012/13: x 1A-1D – Dependence on a repeat regional level accessibility assessment (note a national level assessment has been reported in Monitoring the National Transport Plan, Update 2012 (September 2013) x 1E, 1F – Dependent on update of connectivity indices. These have not been updated in 2012/13 x 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D. 2F. 2G – Dependence on the SWWITCH Household Survey which is due to be undertaken in FY2013/14 x 3A – Dependence upon Welsh Bus Passenger Surveys which have not been repeated since 2010 x 4A, 4B, 4C – Dependence on the SWWITCH Household Survey which is due to be undertaken in FY2013/14 x 5A and 5B – Dependence on updated AQMA information to be provided by the local authorities and reported by Defra x 7E – Dependence on the SWWITCH Household Survey which is due to be undertaken in FY2013/14 x 7F – Dependence upon Welsh Bus Passenger Surveys which have not been repeated since 2010 Page22 167 x 7H – Reliance on police forces to provide crime data for buses 4.8 Monitoring remains a key element of what SWWITCH does, ensuring that individual scheme and the RTP as a whole is delivering the outputs and outcomes that are sought. However, the level of RTP monitoring is clearly related to the investment made and as this has been significantly less than that envisaged as the RTP was prepared, expectation in terms of outputs and outcomes need to be similarly reduced. 4.9 Scheme level monitoring is also important and details of 2012/13 monitoring are included in Appendix Nine. The headlines are as follows: Bus passenger surveys undertaken on routes 381 and 412 in November 2012 show: x Overall decline in user satisfaction levels across the 10 criteria x Levels of satisfaction in respect of service frequency have increased for both routes since the October 2011 baseline surveys x Over 70% of respondents to both surveys were satisfied or very satisfied overall in 2012 Journey Time Reliability surveys - undertaken in Swansea during the AM and PM peaks in October 2012 have enabled an evaluation against the 2011 baseline for the Tawe Bridges phase of the Boulevard Project. The findings are positive: x Reduction in average journey times n/bound and s/bound during peaks x Reduction in average journey times eastbound and westbound in am peak x Reduction in average journey time eastbound in pm peak x Slight increase in average journey time westbound in pm peak Cycle Count data - covering strategic sites across the regional cycle network has been used to inform progress on the Boulevard Project (Tawe Bridges) and the Pembrokeshire Trail, shows that the average daily number of cyclists has increased at indicative sites associated with both schemes 4.10 Traffic Management compliance – All SWWITCH Councils were fully compliant with the Traffic Management Act in 2012/13. In addition all four SWWITCH Councils have Civil Parking Enforcement powers and their 2012/13 reports are included in Appendix Ten 5.0 SUPORTING INFORMATION 5.1 Partnership approach The RTP was developed collaboratively by the four SWWITCH area Councils and with a wide range of stakeholders. The RTP is also the result of other partnerships, between some or all of the constituent Councils and Councils from other consortia areas. This is a priority for SWWITCH moving forwards to improve access and transport. Full details on collaborative working are included in Appendix Eleven 5.2 SWWITCH Decision making processes Details of the structures and decision making processes which support the RTP delivery process are included in Appendix Twelve. 23 Page 168 SWWITCH JOINT COMMITTEE City & County of Swansea Representatives: Councillor June Burtonshaw (Voting) 20, Church Gardens, Cockett, Swansea, SA2 OFE [email protected] Councillor Paul Lloyd 2, Hafnant, Winch Wen, Swansea, SA1 7LG [email protected] Councillor Paul Meara 23, Kimberley Road, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 9DP [email protected] Phil Roberts Corporate Director (Place), Civic Centre, Swansea Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Representatives: Councillor Sandra Miller (Voting) 39, Pantyheol, Penrhiwdyn, Neath, SA11 2HN Councillor Ted Latham 17, Darwin Road, Port Talbot, SA12 6BR [email protected] Councillor David Williams 10 Church Square, Cwmavon, Port Talbot, SA12 9AP [email protected] John Flower Director of Environment Carmarthenshire County Council Representatives: Councillor Colin Evans (Voting) 41, Pontamman Road, Ammanford, SA18 2HY 01269 592 582 [email protected] Councillor Peter Cooper 107, Saron Road, Saron, Ammanford, SA18 3LH [email protected] Richard Workman Director of Transport & Highways, County Hall, Carmarthen, SA31 1JP Pembrokeshire County Council Representatives: Councillor Rob M Lewis (Voting) Stanley Villa, Landshipping, Narberth, Pembrokeshire, SA67 8BE. Phone: - 01834 891214 Bus. Email: [email protected] Councillor Huw George Parsons Lodge, Clunderwen, SA66 7NQ [email protected] Ian Westley Director of Transport & Environment, County Hall, Haverfordwest, SA61 1TP. External Partners Representatives: Justin Davies First Cymru Buses Heol Gwyrosydd, Penlan, Swansea, SA5 7BN [email protected] John Pockett CPT and First Great [email protected] Western Mike Vaughan Arriva Trains Wales Stakeholder Liaison Manager, St Marys House, 47, Penarth Road, Cardiff, CF10 5DJ [email protected] Alison Thomas WAG [email protected] Tim Peppin WLGA Local Government House, Drake Walk, Cardiff, CF10 4LG [email protected] David Beer Passenger Focus [email protected] Mark Langman Network Rail [email protected] Margaret Everson Bus Users UK [email protected] Betsan Caldwell CTA [email protected] Lyndsey Curtis Sustrans [email protected] 30 Copies Page 169