scrutiny report to the city council - birmingham report to the city council _____ review of the west...

Scrutiny Report to the City Council____________________________________

REVIEW OF THE WEST MIDLANDSPASSENGER TRANSPORT AUTHORITYAND CENTRO OPERATIONS AS THEYRELATE TO BIRMINGHAM

Further copies of this report can be obtained from:Rose HaarhoffScrutiny Support OfficerTel No: 0121 303 1731E-mail: [email protected]

A copy of this report can also be downloaded free of charge from the Scrutiny page of the BirminghamAssist website (www.birmingham.gov.uk/scrutiny).

4 February 2003

1

Contents

Page

1. Preface 2

2. Executive Summary 3

3. Introduction 4

4. Terms of Reference 5

5. Method of Investigation 5

6. Findings 6

7. Conclusions 7

8. Recommendations 8

Appendices

Appendix A Schedule of detailed findings 9

Minority Report by Cllr. Vincent Johnson 22

2

1. Preface

By Councillor Mike OlleyChair, Co-ordinating Overview and Scrutiny CommitteeDecember 2002

Members of the City Council, I believe, are united in understanding that the futureof Birmingham and its people depend on a substantial improvement in transportsystems. This holds true whichever viewpoint one takes – achieving a healthiereconomy and more prosperity; the social benefits of being able to travel moreeasily and more safely; or the desire for a more sustainable way of living.

Improved public transport is a key part of this agenda. Yet delivering theseimprovements is a complex matter in which many different companies andagencies play a role. The work of two bodies central to this task – the WestMidlands Passenger Transport Authority and Centro, its executive arm – is moreoften acknowledged than understood.

This scrutiny review has been lengthy and particularly thorough. But its definingcharacteristic has been the partnership between the review group and CouncillorRichard Worrall, Chair of WMPTA. My scrutiny colleagues and I are very gratefulto him for his involvement, and to all the representatives of operators, serviceusers, and City Council and Centro officers who took part in and supported thereview.

We have identified many detailed actions which would help to improve publictransport in the city. But our fundamental recommendations are aimed atrefreshing and strengthening the partnership between the City Council andWMPTA, and so improving our chances of obtaining badly needed investment forthe West Midlands.

3

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Co-ordinating Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed on 13th July 2001to establish an Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee to conduct ascrutiny review of the operations of the West Midlands PassengerTransport Authority (WMPTA) and the Passenger Transport Executive(Centro) as they relate to Birmingham.

2.2 The West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority is a separate statutorybody comprising 27 members (of which 10 are from Birmingham) of theseven metropolitan district councils (Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley,Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton). Centro is the organisationresponsible for putting the WMPTA policies into action; developing andpromoting public transport across the West Midlands, within a financial andpolitical framework set by WMPTA.

2.3 The review was carried out by this three-party Sub-Committee, joined,after the first meeting by Cllrs Worrall and Horton from WMPTA. Theirparticipation ensured that the review took place in a spirit of partnership, aswell as bringing their expertise and knowledge of the issues to the table.

2.4 The review was conducted through a programme of 13 meetings, eachlooking at a specific set of Centro services. At each, Centro were invited toset out their policies and give their views. The Sub-Committee then heardfrom relevant operators and users. In addition, the Sub-Committee visitedNottingham, one of the Core Cities where there is not a PTA.

2.5 The Appendix to the full report contains a list of detailed preliminaryfindings and recommendations drawn up by the Sub-Committee. Thesewere shared with WMPTA and Centro. Their comments on action taken,and the Sub-Committee’s reactions, are also shown in the Appendix.

2.6 All the issues shown in the Appendix are important in their own right. TheSub-Committee’s main message, however, is more fundamental. In thediscussion of the various issues what emerged too frequently was thatthere had been a breakdown of trust and confidence betweenWMPTA/Centro and the City Council.

2.7 The Sub-Committee believes strongly that these relationship issues mustbe addressed if substantial progress is to be made on the policy andpractice issues.

2.8 The recommendations before the City Council, therefore, are aimed atrebuilding the partnership between WMPTA/Centro and the City Council inparticular but more generally with all seven West Midlands MetropolitanDistrict Councils. These recommendations are set out in section 8 of thereport.

2.9 Also included is a minority report submitted by Cllr. Vincent Johnson.

4

3. Introduction

3.1 Co-ordinating Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed on 13th July 2001to establish an Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee to conduct ascrutiny review of the operations of the West Midlands PassengerTransport Authority (WMPTA) and the Passenger Transport Executive(Centro) as they relate to Birmingham. This reports on the conclusions ofthe review including responses from the WMPTA/Centro to the findings.

3.2 The West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority is a separate statutorybody comprising 27 members (of which 10 are from Birmingham) of theseven metropolitan district councils (Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley,Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton). It was established in the1985 Local Government Act and sets the political and financial frameworkfor the work of the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive, knownas Centro.

3.3 Centro is the organisation responsible for putting the WMPTA policies intoaction; developing and promoting public transport across the WestMidlands. Centro aims to create the conditions in which people willincreasingly choose to use public transport for some of their journeys. Todo this money is raised from council tax payers, from Government, fromEuropean grants and through private sector finance. This provides a fundfor public transport each year. The WMPTA decides on the broaddirections, policies and projects that the money should be spent on andCentro deliver these.

3.4 The services administered by the West Midlands Passenger TransportAuthority are:

a) Providing support to run non profit making but socially necessaryservices.

b) Providing bus shelters, bus stations and passenger information.

c) Arranging for travel subsidies for children, scholars and pensioners,and people with disabilities and discounted tickets/travel cards foruse on buses, trains and trams.

d) Specifying timetables, fare levels and service quality for local trainsunder franchise, let by the Strategic Rail Authority.

e) Along with the District Councils, investing in stations, track andsignalling and local bus infrastructure.

f) Providing the transport for special mobility needs through itssubsidies for the West Midlands Special Needs Transport.

g) Working in partnership with Local Authorities and other operators toimprove services and develop initiatives such as a light rail system.

5

3.5 The membership of the Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee were:

Councillor Mike Olley (Chair)Councillor Sue AndersonCouncillor Andrew NichollsCouncillor Vincent JohnsonCouncillor Peter Howard (replacing Councillor Denis Oakley/CouncillorMark Hill)

3.6 It was accepted that it would not be appropriate for City Council Membersof the WMPTA to be included on the Sub-Committee but they would beinvited to comment near the end of the process.

3.7 Following the first meeting, it was agreed that two members of theWMPTA should be invited to attend and Councillors Worrall and Hortonattended almost all of the meetings.

4. Terms of Reference

4.1 The formal, agreed terms of reference for this review were as follows:

• to examine and review the operations of WMPTA and Centro in so faras they relate to Birmingham;

• to assess how effectively these operations are undertaken and whetherthere are any alternative models which may merit consideration;

• to produce a series of formal recommendations on the operations ofthe WMPTA and Centro and the City Council’s relations with them.

5. Method of Investigation

5.1 A timetable of meetings and the sub division of areas of review wasdecided at the Sub-Committee’s first meeting focussing on particularresponsibilities or services. Centro were invited to set out theirpolicies/standards and give their views, with representatives from usergroups and operators invited as necessary.

5.2 A regular programme of scrutiny meetings (13 in total) were held intodifferent services provided by Centro, e.g. Shelters, ConcessionaryServices, Metro, Bus Showcase, Special Needs. The meetings wereconducted in a spirit of collaboration and discussions.

5.3 Additionally, a visit to Nottingham (a non-PTA area) on 3rd December 2001was undertaken to compare and review passenger services provision in aunitary authority in comparison to Birmingham’s PTA area.

6

5.4 The draft final report was discussed with Birmingham WMPTA Membersand comments have been taken into account.

6. Findings

6.1 The findings of the scrutiny review are set out in detail in the Appendix.Given the collaborative way in which this review proceeded with theChairman of the PTA present at every meeting – after he was invited at thefirst meeting to attend – what we did was to share our preliminary findingswith PTA members and Centro officers. These findings(recommendations) are shown in the second column of the Appendix. Inthe next column we show the actions which Centro/WMPTA haveindicated were about to take place or had already taken place in responseto these issues. Having then discussed these responses the final columnshows the Scrutiny Sub-Committee’s response to the matters. TheAppendix is best described as covering on-going work – indeed some ofthe detailed action points have already been implemented.

6.2 The findings reveal the detailed way in which the Sub-Committeeapproached its task. This was only possible because of the excellentinvolvement throughout by WMPTA/Centro. Councillor Worrall the Chairof the PTA led by example in being present at all these fact findingsessions and following up issues where the answer was not immediatelyavailable.

6.3 There is, however, a well-used phrase “the whole is greater than the sumof the parts” and this is the main message, which we feel we need to getacross. From our scrutiny review all of the issues identified are veryimportant in their own right but, as we discussed them, what emerged toofrequently was that there has been a breakdown of confidence and trustbetween WMPTA/Centro and the City Council. City Councilrepresentatives believe WMPTA/Centro do not share their proposalsadequately with the City Council. It is felt that they too often bring “rabbitsout of the hat” at the last moment and fail to drive forward the criticallyimportant transportation agenda. On the other hand, WMPTA/Centro feelthat their efforts are not properly recognised; that the City Council tends to“forget” previous guidance given and is too quick to criticise withoutrecognising Central Government’s constraints which often impact on theirwork.

7

7. Conclusions

7.1 If we are to deal with the policy and practice issues addressed we mustalso deal with the relationship issues. This is where the role of the 7 WestMidlands Metropolitan Leaders in giving “direction” to the WMPTA/Centropolicy framework also needs to be brought into the picture.

7.2 What we would like to see is better guidance given to the 7 Councils’ LeadMembers on Joint Authorities – this also includes the Lead Member forPolice and Fire and Civil Defence as well as the PTA – about theiraccountability back to the City Council.

7.3 Making a start on this, what we would envisage here in Birmingham is thatat Council meetings each Lead member of a Joint Authority should presenta brief update report on matters of interest to the full Council which wouldthen be followed by a short period of question time. This will not only givethe Council’s Lead Member on the Joint Authority the opportunity topresent to the City Council issues of importance but will also provide animportant public platform to achieve a greater awareness of the mainopportunities and pressures faced by that organisation.

7.4 There also needs to be more precision about the roles of the 7 WestMidlands Leaders and WMPTA/Centro in “championing” transport issuesacross the conurbation. We are conscious that this is also an issue whichis currently being given active consideration by the 7 West MidlandsLeaders. We understand that the West Midlands Metropolitan ChiefExecutives Group is making a number of proposals on these mattersranging from a new Transport Reference Group being set up and forgreater opportunity to input into the Passenger Transport Executive.

7.5 There are currently 9 places on the Passenger Transport Executive. Only6 of these potential places are currently taken up. Our suggestion is thatthe remaining 3 places should be taken up on a rotating basis by 3 of the 7Metropolitan Chief Executives or a very senior nominee. This wouldintroduce a more collaborative way of working and would follow a modelwhich we believe is successfully operated by the South Yorkshire PTE.

7.6 Finally, like the City Council, WMPTA/Centro in striving to improve itsperformance is considering a number of Best Value Reviews. This is nowproviding a good platform for looking at improvements in performance andwhat we would like to see is some agreement for some joint trackingarrangements to be put in place. To this end, a further meeting betweenthe Co-ordinating O&S Committee and Councillors Worrall and Horton willbe held in 3 months’ time. This meeting will review progress made on thedetailed issues set out in the Appendix.

8

8. Recommendations

8.1 The Co-ordinating O&S Committee recommends:

1. that the West Midland Leaders be asked to consider the advisabilityof the vacant places on the West Midlands Passenger TransportExecutive being taken up by three of the seven West MidlandsMetropolitan District Chief Executives (or very senior nominees),with detailed arrangements agreed by the Chief Executives;

2. that the Council Business Management Committee be asked toconsider the implications of the proposal that the City Council’sLead Members on the West Midlands Police, Fire and CivilDefence, and Passenger Transport Authorities be given a formalopportunity at Council meetings to update the Council on the workof the Joint Authorities;

3. that the seven West Midlands Metropolitan District Leaders beasked as a matter of urgency to agree ways of improving theMetropolitan area’s ability to champion transport issues and lobbyfor investment across the conurbation.

9

APPENDIX A

Socially Necessary Services – those services which receive subsidy from Centro in order for them to operate, i.e. whereoperators do not consider them commercially viable

ISSUES FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION TAKEN -CENTRO/WMPTA

SCRUTINY COMMENTS

Research intocustomerneeds

There has been a low level ofresearch done into social needfactors (such as thoseencountered by an elderlypopulation in a hilly area).

Operators/Centro should work togetherand publish annual research proposals.Centro could publish a map showingthose areas not covered by the ServiceQuality Standards criteria.

In hand through the Best ValueReview of Subsidised BusServices reporting in December2002. Included in currentIntegrated Ticketing Strategybeing developed in consultationwith operators as part of the LTPBus Strategy work.

• Monitor progresswhen map published

• Measure of successneeded on meetingcustomerrequirement

Services intonewemploymentareas

Low level of services/access toemployment areas.Consideration should be givento subsidising services andmajor employment sites inBirmingham.

Consideration should be given to aproactive approach in respect of newcommercial developments withCentro/Operators working together onrevised service patterns.

A “Quick Wins” proposalapproved by District Leaders anda budget of £250,000 wasidentified for the Centro area for2002/03. Centro and the CityCouncil active in promotingTravelWise where public transportfacilities are available.

In Birmingham, contract renewalsmeans earliest date April 2003.Urban Bus Challenge will includeAston.

• Welcome proposals• Monitor effectiveness

Validity ofthrough ticketsis an issuebetweendifferentoperators

Problems withintegration/ticketing/charges.

While products such as ‘Centrocard’are available, expansion of‘Smartcards’ should be pursued toenable tickets to be used on a range ofservices.

Included in Ticketing Strategyreferred to above. CoventrySmartcard trial an LTP projectduring current financial year.

• Await results of trial

10

Shelters and Information – the provision of shelters and information is a joint responsibility of Centro and operators

ISSUES FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION TAKEN - CENTRO/WMPTA SCRUTINY COMMENTS

Joint procurement of street furniture in thelight of the finish of the ‘Adshel’ contract in2003.

Large number ofshelter types.Little co-ordination with otherstreetfurniture

Being looked at by Centro with DistrictAuthorities.

Members felt that there was much tocommend joint procurement especiallyremoving the current “mish-mash” of designsCentro to keep District Authorities informed.Birmingham might consider “going it alone”and negotiate a single street furniture contract.

Centro is currently developing an Advertising ShelterContract specification for West Midlands in consultationwith Districts. A Best Value Review of InfrastructureServices is also taking place to be completed.

• Early consultationrequired on newcontract

Suggestions for a planned central informationpoint (Birmingham City Council/WMPTA).More focused maps (relating to smaller areas)are needed.

Availability andindecipherability ofCity Centre businformation

Complex nature of many of the maps atboarding point .

Information sheets produced by Centroneeds to be considered.

Bus stop numbering system and city centrefrequent changes a concern. Lack of stopinformation elsewhere.

Travel West Midlands experimental work onthe Pershore Road, including the provision of105 new stops/poles, each with a uniqueidentification. Also route diagrams andcustomer information contact numbers wereprovided. Expansion to the rest of the cityencouraged.

“Where to Board Your Bus” maps being reviewed as partof Network West Midlands project work this year with rollout next year.

Information for bus passengers in the city centre is mademore difficult by the number of street changes due to thecity centre redevelopment. Centro works successfully withcontractors, operators and City Council to provideinformation to bus users about these changes. PTAapproved Passenger Information Strategic Plan beingimplemented. Proposal for co-ordinated at stopinformation to PTA Committee 19 August 2002.

• City Council to beconsulted

• Travel WestMidlands approachshould beconsidered for rollout across the restof City

Need for co-ordinationof street advertising

Opportunities being lost by the replacementof existing advertising shelters with non-advertising ones. High quality advertisingcould enhance the experience of people inthe City. Capital costs can be entirelyadvertising funded (leverage being throughlocation). Customer recognition thatbeautiful street furniture was being paid forby advertising.

Discussions should take place betweenauthorities to recognise the possibilities of co-ordinated street furniture and possible income.

In hand through advertising shelter contract specificationreferred to above. • Noted

11

Concessionary fares – subsidised rail, bus and metro journeys for classes of users

ISSUES FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION TAKEN - CENTRO/WMPTA SCRUTINYCOMMENTS

A satisfactoryreimbursementscheme does notseem to havebeen agreedbetween operatorsand Centro

There was an excessive length oftime being taken to agree a schemefor calculating reimbursement.

Centro/Operators to agree on thereimbursement. There is need for anaccurate mechanism for calculatingreimbursement.

Operators are involved in agreeing a revisedreimbursement system. It should be notedduring the interim period we have achievedsavings that have been reflected in the surplusesthat have been re-invested, or have been repaidto Districts as cash-back.

• Process to beset out under thenew powersavailable to thePTA

Uneven farespolicy foreducation trips

There are differences between PTEareas and the role of parentalchoice/eligibility being not easilyunderstood.

City Council in conjunction with Centroto conduct a review of their policies inthe light of national changes (alsoreferred to Chair of former LearningCity Overview and ScrutinyCommittee).

In part this has been done with our liaison withDistricts on withdrawal of school services,endorsed by District Leaders in January.

• Refer toSustainability &Public SafetyO&S Committeeas part of theirreview

Confusion overcoverage ofconcessionarytravel schemes

The representatives of Pete’s Travelhighlighted the confusion beingcaused to drivers by the differingtimes of validity of the variousconcessions: this being a particularproblem on long journeys into otherareas. There were other confusionsover different categories of disabilityand the 3 types of passes issued.

It is suggested that it would be better tocontinue with a Countywide scheme,rather than different schemes for eachauthority but that the arrangements besimplified as far as possible.

The implementation of the Blind and DisabledScheme was carried out following extensiveconsultation with, and approval by, all Districts.The add on pass proposals, resulting in thecomplexity articulated by Pete’s Travel, were adirect result of this. Proposal regarding acountrywide scheme are likely to come forwardduring 2003/04.

• Views ofScrutiny to bepassed on toCity Council forLeadersconsideration

Cost of currentConcessionaryFares

Free passes were found to be veryvaluable by pensioners but cost anincreasing proportion of revenuebudget each year.

Centro/WMPTA to continue to liaisewith District Authorities over theconcessionary fare arrangements. CityCouncil to lobby Government forunequivocal financial support for amore generous scheme.

We would agree with this. • Noted

12

Local Rail – Centro is a joint sponsor of local rail services with the Strategic Rail Authority and involves specifying the basictimetable, the standards and the fare structure within the framework of the Railways Act 1993


Effective lobbying

There is a lack of an effective,inclusive West Midlands lobby aimedat ensuring that the region receives afair share of national rail investment.

West Midlands PTA should take aregional lead with the City Council incontinuous lobbying.

The West Midlands Communication Strategy wasapproved by the West Midlands Planning &Transportation Sub-Committee in July. Lobbyingstrategy under consideration with DistrictLeaders.

• Clarity neededon who isleading withDistrict Leaders

• PTA have a keyrole

There are several important issues,including short platform lengths atsome stations, and the possibleeasing of congestion at Snow Hill andNew Street if trains could run throughfrom Walsall.There is a need to provide moretrains/seats at peak times, with thecompany (Central Trains) alreadydeploying the 112 carriages at peaktimes as stipulated in the franchiseagreement with Centro. The declinein government support has resulted ina loss making scheme in need ofinvestment.

Quality of trainsand services

The condition of the present rollingstock is thought to provide a poorpassenger experience.

Centro should work with the StrategicRail Authority and the operator to seeka franchise extension that producesadditional/refurbished trains of a betterquality and funding for capacityimprovements.

Addressed in franchise extension bid by CentralTrains. Capacity improvements underconsideration for funding for Strategic RailAuthority. Compliance with existing agreement isclosely monitored by SRA and Centro.

The SRA is paying Railtrack to carry out detaileddesign work on a number of capacity schemesthat will approximately double rail capacity in theWest Midlands over the next 10 years. Thisdesign work will be completed next March whenthe SRA will reassess the value for money andhopefully find the funding to implement theschemes.

• Enhancementandrefranchising isa key issue forthe City Council

• Progress on railimprovementsnot satisfactory

13

Overcrowding onpeak services anda lack of barriers tofraudulent travel

The checking/collection of tickets ishampered by the absence of gatecontrols at all stations.Inspection of tickets at New Streetstation collected £190,000 additionalfares over a 40 day period (40% wasCentral Trains income). Theestimated £1million capitalexpenditure required to install agating system at New Street Stationcould be quickly recouped throughthe generation of an additional£2million per annum in fares revenue.

The current penalty fare needs to besubstantially higher (than £10) inorder to act as a deterrent. Morefrequent ticket inspection would helpto enforce the penalty fare.

Centro/WMPTA to explore with theoperators measures to ensure effectivepenalties for fraudulent travel andintroduction of ticket barriers startingwith central Birmingham stations.

Central Trains have proposals to provide staffedbarriers at central Birmingham stations. Includedin Central Trains Franchise extension work.

Central felt £10 penalty fare should be £25.

• Look tooperatingcompanies andother PTA areasto supporthigher penalties

14

Bus Showcase

ISSUES FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION TAKEN - CENTRO/WMPTA SCRUTINY COMMENTS

• Noted

Value of bus lanesand otherShowcasemeasures

In order for a Showcase to be successful,all elements of the full package areneeded. Of importance to passengers isthe provision of better buses and greaterreliability of service. The importance ofbus lane enforcement was highlighted.City Council are members of the LocalAuthority Bus Lane Enforcement WorkingGroup led by the Government.

Centro should update the Bus ShowcaseHandbook with District Authorities. CityCouncil/ Centro to take a more in-depthinvestigation of corridors/ route problemsto provide more continuous improvementby tackling problem junctions and feederroutes. A trial of bus lane enforcementcameras should be pursued on aShowcase route.

Bus Showcase Handbook prepared by Centro indiscussion with Districts for approval by WestMidlands Planning & Transportation Sub-Committee in September.

CEPOG Support Team Best Value Review ofShowcase states “The Bus Showcase servicesprovided by WMPTA are good and have promisingprospects for improvement”.

• Trial ofenforcement nowagreed for Digbeth

Showcase Line 33performance

Centro has undertaken a Best ValueReview of Line 33 – key issue co-ordination of infrastructure /vehicleinvestment The review has emphasisedthe need to pursue innovative ideas, suchas the targeting of remedial work onjunctions, rather than merely creating buslanes through a route. There is also aneed for slightly longer term planning –Operators said that the lead in times forthe purchase of new buses are at least 9months; vehicles being built to order ataround £140,000 each, with around 10 to20 buses required per route (singledeckers on line 33 were not coping atpeak times).

Centro/ Operators should monitor theperformance of the route and seek to planfor longer term change including capacityof bus fleet.

Audit Commission Best Value Inspectionpublished in July 2002 of Showcase states “theBus Showcase services provided by WMPTA aregood and have promising prospects forimprovement”.

Route performance will be monitored through BusQuality Partnerships from introduction of the firststatutory agreement which is likely to be Route 67.

Improving the bus vehicle fleet is a matter forcommercial bus operators.

• Regular monitoringof patronage andperformance needsto be reported

15

Revenue costimplications ofShowcase

The cost of operating Showcase routesas currently constructed are much higherthan conventional routes.

In hand through Quality Bus Partnership meetingwith Districts, regarding maintenance. Revenuerecovery could be via an access charge tooperators. The debate on replacing shelter glassis as yet unresolved but is under review by Centrofor areas of high vandalism damage. The revenueconsequences of capital investment across arange of facilities is being addressed throughDistrict Treasurers Group.

• Creative solutionsneeded, e.g. CivilAction

• Detailedinformation isneeded andtimescales forimplementation

Value/ role of ‘RealTime’ information indifferent situations

It was suggested that Centro might needto consider removing the passengerinformation on a route, if good servicefrequency so warranted, or considerupgrading that technology.

Ways of reducing fixed costs toCentro/local authorities should bepursued e.g. carefully targeting real timeinformation or using advertising shelters.Satellite tracking systems e.g. linked tothe highways SCOOT system. In hand. Successful bid for RTI money from DTLR

currently being implemented for December 2003with significant input from Birmingham CityCouncil. Future revenue implications underconsideration including access charge onoperators.

• Costs should beshared withoperators

16

Consultation


Role of CityCouncil,Operators,WMPTA andCentro information

Public understanding of roles of CityCouncil, operators, PTA and Centro inrespect of bus and rail operations ispoor. Widespread use of Centro logois confusing.

Centro/ WMPTA should take measuresto ensure that the public, Councillorsand MPs understand who isresponsible for which specific roles inpublic transport provision. The use ofthe Centro logo should be revised.

In hand as part of West MidlandsCommunications Strategy referred to above.The Network West Midlands Project will reviewall branding logos.

• Birminghambranding shouldbe considered

• Report to CityCouncil on PTAchoices

Consultationframework

Joint development of ConsultationFramework is needed. Issues of valuefor money have been addressed in thePTA Best Value Review andconsideration is being given to theproduction of a good practice guide onconsultation.

Centro and the local authorities shoulddevelop a consultation framework foruse in joint consultations on publictransport projects.

Centro will work with Birmingham in developinga joint consultation framework.

• City Councilreferred Centro toCity’s framework

• Awaitdevelopments

Effectiveness oflocal liaison

The present regular forum forconsulting on local transport matters isBirmingham and Solihull transportusers advisory committee set up byCentro. There is little representationfrom ethnic minorities or young peopleand public attendance is poor.

Alternative methods for local publicinvolvement need to be consideredjointly with operators.

This is being addressed as part of the PTABest Value Review of Subsidised Bus Servicesdue to report in July 2002.

PTA are investigating ways of improving thesocial/ethnic mix of Advisory Committees.

• Methods ofmeasuringsuccess shouldbe agreed andtested out

Metro ExtensionConsultation

City Council’s approach to consultationnot necessary followed. Targets forfeedback not set. Some groups feltthey had not been properly consulted.

See recommendation on frameworkabove.

Success factors for consultationshould be agreed.

Full consultation was undertaken to meetTransport & Works Act Order requirements ofPTA. Further consultation will followpublication.

• See above

17

Special Needs


Accessibility of railstations

Not all railway stations in the WestMidlands are accessibleResponsibility of meeting theobligations of the disabilitydiscrimination act 1995 (ensuringaccessible rail stations) falls to Railtrackas Centro do not own the railinfrastructure.

A programme of upgrading of theremaining Birmingham stations toDDA requirements should be agreedwith Railtrack and Central Trains.

In hand with SRA, Railtrack and train operators(who are statutorily responsible for stationaccess) following PTA Policy & Strategy reportin April 2002.

• Timetable neededfor upgrading tobe agreed

Ring and Ride services are not fullytendered (they are provided by WestMidlands Special Needs Transport)and are not provided in conjunctionwith low floor bus services. There wasresistance by the operator to tender ademand responsive service.Ring and Ride Service usersexperience difficulties in makingbookings.Need for Ring and Ride to providefacility for those wishing to travel to andfrom hospital and longer journeys.

Ring and Rideservice

Leaflet and information was not alwayseasy to obtain.

The efficiency of the current service(subsidy of over £4/journey) needs tobe tested and the bookingarrangements overhauled.

Mechanisms by which sociallyimportant services can be met shouldbe integrated by Centro/WMSNT.

Ring and Ride should provide leafletsin minority ethnic languages.

In hand. Special Needs Transport is subject toa Best Value Review reporting in 2003.

• Await report butneeds to befollowed through

AccessibleVehicles

Only 56% of fully tendered bus serviceswere provided with vehicles whichcomplies with the Disabled PersonsTransport Authority Committee’sspecifications.

As tenders are renewed, thenspecifications should be examined tosee if fully accessible vehicles arerequired and be cost effective.

District Leaders have allocated funding toincrease the use of low floor vehicles fortendered services as a “Quick Win”. Part ofBest Value review of tendered services, dueDecember 2002.

• Monitor howeffective TenderedServices arefollowing change

18

Residential busroutes

Improvements for estate routes shouldbe considered within Policy review.

Bus routes on housing estates and inresidential areas should have acoherent set of policies (identifyingstandards such as stop information,shelter location, frequency of servicesand access).

In hand through Best Value Review ofSubsidised Bus Services. Also improvementsto estate services are included in DistrictLeaders Quick Wins (£500,000). Work isprogressing on the 333 in Walsall &Wolverhampton as a model “estate” servicesuitable for small scale improvements as part ofthe Bus Strategy.

• Timetable neededforimplementation inBirmingham

Travelling in thecity centre

Difficulty experienced in travellingacross and around the city centre dueto poor interchange. Shopmobility wasonly available from two locations.

Centro should plan for more integratedtransport across the city with betterinterchange. Shopmobility should bemore widely available and also offeredto people arriving in the city centre bycar.

Plans are in hand for improved interchangethrough the City Centre Bus Mall Scheme.Centro is also proposing improvements to the77 City Centre service.

• Better interchangeneeds to be givenprominence inCity Centre plans

• City Councilshould expandShopmobility toother car parks

Travel passes provide an easier optionthan cash fares for the blind anddisabled.

Blind and disabled concessionary farestravel should be given priority in theforthcoming review by DistrictCouncils and the WMPTA.

Blind and disabledpasses

Ability to travel to work for the disabledis very important.

Centro should investigate qualitytaxibus for young disabled wishing totravel to and from work.

Matter being brought to attention of DistrictLeaders. Taxibus is included in the Best ValueSpecial Needs Review referred to above.

• Countrywidescheme preferred

• Timetable forcompletion ofreview needed

19

Light Rail


Travel Midland Metro explained thatthere has been difficulty in running all16 trams. Presently the maximumnumber of trams able to run at one timeis 13 and of those only 10 weredescribed as very reliable. Spare partsare difficult to obtain from Ansaldo andthe concession deed is insufficient.

For future extensions the operators(such as Travel Midland Metro) viewsshould be sought in the revisions toprocurement documentation.

Trams can now be bought ‘off the shelf’rather than ordering bespoke designs.

There is a need to for any new tramspurchased to include provision formaintenance as well.

Learning fromMetro Line 1: tramoperation andpurchase

There appears to be no clearcontractual relationship between TravelMidland Metro and Ansaldo which hasresulted in TMM seeking other ways ofrepairing rolling stock rather thanpersisting with Ansaldo.

WMPTA/ Centro should ensure that anyfuture contract concerning the Metroline extension should includesafeguards for a satisfactory workingrelationship between all parties.

Had detailed meetings with Travel MidlandMetro on problems. 15 trams expectedoperational by Christmas.

In hand through Metro Line 1 Best ValueReview reporting in December 2002.

• Procurementlessons to beapplied for Metroextensions

• Attention to tramsand currentservice welcomed

Light Rapid Transit needs to beaffordable to district councils throughthe levy arrangements.Financial costs of

implementing alight rail scheme

A major preoccupation had been topass risk to the private sector and it hadnot been possible to legislate in a waythat a partnership would work. Thelosses on the Line 1 scheme were noteasily overcome without the CityCentre extension.

All parties should work towardsproviding a network with fair transfer ofrisk through the procurement process.

Centro is now developing its approach toprocuring Metro extensions. Birmingham willbe involved in this as a stakeholder and allDistricts will be involved in final decisions onfinancial issues.

• Risk transfer to bepart of evaluationprocess

20

WMPTA/Centro Financial Issues (arranged as a result of Centro’s former Finance Director’s letter to the Evening Mail).


The level ofWMPTA cashbalances

Balances have increased to £87min 2001/02. Useable reserves haveincreased from £10m in 1999 to£23m in 2001. Sale of BusCompany in 1991 - £26m still leftfrom proceeds.

In view of the difficult position ofDistrict Council revenue budgets,the provision for future expenditureand the level of surpluses appearedvery high and should be regularlyreviewed with the City Council.Centro need a culture of looking forsavings.

All the earmarked provisions and surplusesare being fully discussed through theDistrict Treasurer’s Group. Centro hasalready undertaken a budget review thathas identified further savings and hasreported back through District Leaders.Balances to be reviewed early in 2003.

• Growth inbalances a reallevel of concern

• Welcomed earlyreview byDistrict Leaders

Reduction ininvestment inheavy rail

It was noted that discussions onpossible double counting of railinvestment were protracted.Recent investment was well belowother PTE areas. Lack ofleadership in West Midlands.

Centro/WMPTA need to have dueregard for designing and fundinglocal rail improvements includinginteresting the private sector andproviding leadership.

PTA/Centro in discussion withSRA/Railtrack re Phase 1 schemes inWest Midlands Rail Capacity Studyrecommendations.

• Not convincedthatimprovementswill materialise

Late delivery ofprojects e.g. BusShowcase

There was a 27% increase in salarybudget (compared to a 11%increase in numbers). Over £5mslippage in capital schemes was aconcern.

Need to work with DistrictAuthorities at targeting resourcesand realistic partnerships andprogrammes.

District partners and Centro have takenaction through West Midlands Planning &Transportation Sub-Committee to addresscurrent problem of delivery of LTP projects.Confident that underachieving will havebeen solved in 12 months.

• Monitorachievement in12 months

21

Nottingham Visit


Differencesbetween PTEareas andUnitary/Shirecounty areas inprovision ofservices

Bus companies: Nottingham CityCouncil has 80% of theshareholding and the TransdevBoard 20% of Nottingham CityTransport. Maintenance costs arehigh but are replacing fleet (stillprofitable).

Close liaison with transportoperators has produced goodmarketing and benefits - could bebetter applied in Birmingham.

Timescale for introduction of Quality BusPartnership set.

• Monitorintroduction ofpartnershipsand impact

Provision of parkand ride

Park and Ride – 2 sites providedcommercially by Nottingham CityTransport and 2 subsidised withother operators.

Close liaison needed betweenoperators and funders of facility.Bus Park and Ride for Birminghamneeds careful consideration.

Christmas Park and Ride services have notbeen successful in Birmingham in the past.Local rail network focussed on Birminghamhas some 4,500 park and ride spaces.

Bus Park and Ride e.g. on Showcaseroutes is hampered by the District Councilgenerally unable to identify suitable sites.Joint Centro/District Park & Ride Studyestablishing criteria.

• Study will helpbut real impetusneeded to theprogramme

Funding railprojects

PTE’s involved in rail franchising.Nottingham City Council had a lessclose relationship with the railindustry.

Close relationship with rail industrywelcomed.

Integration withwider CityCouncil transportstrategy

Nottingham branded Nottingham –Birmingham branded CentroTravelWise Centre – 40% fundedby County Council, remainder CityCouncil.

Need for WMPTA/Centro toconsider a Birmingham branding ofinitiatives within the City.City/Centro should consider a jointTravelWise centre.

The Network West Midlands Projectproposals under discussion betweenCentro, operators and Districts.

• PossibleBirminghambranding is to beconsidered

22

MINORITY REPORT FROM CLLR VINCENT JOHNSON

This is the first minority report to any major scrutiny review carried out by the CityCouncil so far. I have three reasons for taking this unprecedented step.

The first is simply to provide fellow Councillors with more up to date informationwhich has become available since the main review report was drafted but whichillustrates the depth of concern over public transport both locally and nationally.The City Council itself on 3 December 2002 debated and approved a motionwhich expressed serious concern about the damage being done to the localeconomy by the continued disruption to West Midlands rail services. Councilcalled on the Government to instruct the Strategic Rail Authority to provideimmediate investment in the network.

More fundamentally, perhaps, the same week saw the publication of a reportentitled “Public Subsidy for the Bus Industry” from the Commission for IntegratedTransport. That report – three years in the making – sets out a range of measuresto “enable the bus network to expand and grow – providing a better alternative tothe car, offering new hope to the socially excluded, and helping the bus to providenecessary access, to reduce traffic congestion and to curb pollution”. While manyof the Commission’s proposals challenge the Government – for example, toincentivise local authorities and bus operators to provide better services – thereare also hard decisions for local decision makers. For example, the Commissionrecommends that fare concessions for elderly people and those with disabilitiesshould be restricted to 50%; funds saved should be used to provide half-fareconcessions for people on means-tested benefits and adults in full-timeeducation. The Commission believes this would significantly increase buspatronage. Elsewhere in its report the Commission asks for sharper performanceindicators – including a separate target for increasing bus patronage outsideLondon by 10% in the ten years to 2012.

In mid-December the Government announced its annual transport settlement. Inthe details of the spending plans, Members of the City Council can see exactlywhy the Scrutiny Committee’s report emphasises the importance of lobbyingeffectively for our region. I have read the Government’s press releases detailingtheir transport spending plans for the North West region and for the WestMidlands region. Both regions receive money for widening the M6. Putting that toone side, the North West has been allocated £924 million, £520 million of which isfor extensions to the Manchester Metrolink. On the other hand, the West Midlandsallocation is only £177 million. The contrast is stark.

As Councillors – and particularly those of us who take the overview and scrutinyrole – our job is to represent the needs of our communities. Transport is pre-eminently an area where this is a complex task, where economic, social andsustainability arguments all come to bear. One part of our role is to champion theneeds of passengers. From this point of view, I must criticise the O&SCommittee’s report. There is little here to convince passengers that between themthe City Council, the WMPTA, Centro and the bus and train companies haveclear, well-thought out proposals for early, fundamental improvements to services.Recommendations are too often couched in terms of “considerations should be

23

given to”, “Centro could”, “Birmingham might consider”. The Centro/WMPTAresponses use phrases such as “currently developing”, “being reviewed”, “likely tocome forward.” This is simply not robust enough. Firmer, clearer targets should beset so that passengers, other citizens and businesses alike are informed ofplanned improvements. Doing so would also allow WMPTA and Centro to beproperly accountable.

This brings me to my final point. The evidence taken during the review – which isnot recounted in the report but which is contained in the minutes of the manymeetings of the Sub-Committee over the last seventeen months – raisesquestions as to whether the WMPTA and Centro have the capacity to deliversignificant improvements to Birmingham’s public transport system. Government’srecently announced plans for transport expenditure add to these questions. Thiscapacity has several dimensions.

At a personal level, the individuals currently occupying leadership positions inWMPTA and Centro need to ask themselves frankly whether their performancehas been adequate. Whether or not different individuals come to occupy thoseleading positions, in future much tighter performance indicators for thepostholders must be agreed and publicised. This would supplement the currentarrangement whereby the contract between WMPTA and Centro is expressed inthe form of a business plan. Moving to the organisational level, the functions ofthe PTA and Centro are set out in the scrutiny report. These cannot realistically bedescribed as a coherent package, necessary and sufficient to deliver anintegrated transport policy. Some functions might well be better delivered at alocal level, such as supporting socially necessary bus services, providing busshelters, and working with operators on improved traffic management. Others –the specification of train timetables comes to mind – could equally be moreeffectively controlled at a regional level.

Looking wider afield I am struck by the number of institutions which are involved inproviding transport infrastructure and services, including the Strategic RailAuthority, the successor to Railtrack and the Train Operating Companies; busoperators; Government Departments and agencies; and local government. As theGovernment appears to be discovering, bringing all these together in partnershipto deliver an integrated transport policy is extremely difficult. In my opinion, somedegree of re-regulation is not only necessary but inevitable.

My recommendations, which are additional to those in the majority report, aretherefore:

• that the City Council ask the Clerk to the WMPTA to agree and publicise clearand ambitious performance targets against which the WMPTA and theDirector General of Centro can be held accountable; and

• that the City Council inform Government, MPs and the Commission forIntegrated Transport of the difficulties encountered in delivering improvedpublic transport in Birmingham, as set out in both the majority report and thisminority report and elsewhere.

scrutiny report to the city council - birmingham report to the city council _____ review of the west...

Documents