Agenda item

To receive a written report from the Executive Member for City Strategy, and to question the Executive Member thereon, provided any such questions are registered in accordance with the timescales and procedures set out in Standing Order 8(2)(a).

A written report was received from Cllr Reid, the Executive Member for City Strategy.

 

Notice had been received of  9questions put by Members in accordance with Standing Orders, as follows and as set out on the list circulated around the Council Chamber:

 

(i)         From Cllr Hyman:

            "Can the Executive Member outline the reasons for the projected overspend in the Concessionary Fares budget?"

 

“Members will be aware that, despite the original negotiations with all the bus companies and a government grant that reflected the outcome of those negotiations the Concessionary Fares system allowed bus companies to appeal.   First appealed nationally and were  successful.   The Council was required to pay additional £274k reimbursement to First York in 2006/07 which was funded by a one-off release from reserves. However no provision is available for 2007/08.

 

As you will see from my report there has been a further increase in the number of passes issued compared to that of tokens.  A significant increase in bus usage by eligible pass holders and increased bus fares have lead to additional claims for reimbursement.

 

The forecasted overspend is made up of:-

£274k  unfunded costs arising from appeal decision,

£43k inflationary increases by First York,

£51k of additional claims settled by the North Yorkshire Concessionary Fares partnership affecting CYC,

£372k worth of growth in the number of journeys.

 

To put this in context in 2005/06 when the fare was 50p return there were 1 million journeys on First buses.  3 million journeys are forecasted for 2007/08.

 

Although welcoming this increase in bus patronage we are in the same situation as many other Local Authorities in that we have a deficit budget through no fault of our own.   When the Government offers free bus travel for pensioners then it should at least have the decency to fully fund it rather than expecting the general taxpayer to pickup the difference.

 

We will no doubt be in a similar difficult financial situation next year when the national scheme is introduced.”

 

(ii)        From Cllr Simpson-Laing:

            “Can the Executive Member map out the timetable, up to 2011, for work on LTP3 including her envisaged levels of public consultation?”

 

“Cllr Simpson-Laing is, of course, aware that although LTP is funded until 2011 the process involved us indicating our plans for a 15 year period up to 2021.   Therefore we will not be starting from scratch but rather building on what we are doing now.

 

To support that, the Dft have stated that they expect the local transport plan process to carry on beyond 2011, however, this assumes that there will be no change in government.  

 

Clearly if Labour were to lose power changes could be the expected.  So far no guidance has been received from the DfT and it would be foolish to waste resources and undertake work now in advance of any official guidance which will come from the Dft in due course.

 

The guidance, if it is as detailed as previous LTPs, will give a detailed timetable of the process and what is expected from Local Authorities, including consultation, and which priorities the plan should address such as Accessibility, Road Safety, Congestion and Air Quality. 

 

Normally preliminary discussion into the production of an LTP would commence towards the end of the third year of the plan. This would, however, depend on whether a provisional plan needed to be submitted prior to the full plan, as has been the case with both previous LTP's.  To give a detailed timetable of what we propose to do when we are only part way through the second year of the current plan would be pre-empting the process.

 

It is envisaged that a similar level of consultation to that undertaken for both LTP1 and LTP2 would take place to gauge the opinions of the York population and other key stakeholders. I would remind members that our consultation process for LTP2 was cited as best practice by the Dft and I have no reason to suspect that we will not be equally successful next time.”

 

(iii)       From Cllr Simpson-Laing:

            “With regard to Park & Ride patronage can the Executive Member give the anticipated levels of use that would have been achieved if the A59 Park & Ride had not been delayed and explain what effect this removal of vehicles would have had on the Peak Am traffic flows on the A59, inside the Outer Ring Road, and the Inner Ring Road?”

 

“Estimating the anticipated park and ride usage is dependant upon a number of factors including traffic flow on the A59 and adjacent routes, the fares scheme, the journey time and the standard of the service.

 

Morning peak hour usage was expected to be in the region of 100 cars when the site was originally proposed in 2002.  This compares to an average of 550 peak hour cars at Rawcliffe Bar,500 at Askham Bar, 600 at Monks Cross.   I would assume that the majority of those 100 would normally be accessing the City Centre so that would be a reduction of 100 cars on the A59.   However, modeling work showed that there would be some movement from existing P & R sites so some of those 100 vehicles might not actually be using the A59 now.  It was anticipated that there would be a reduction in traffic on the A59 at peak times and an improvement to air quality in the area but perhaps not as great as the raw figures might suggest.  Cllr Simpson-Laing will be aware that the Faber Maunsell report showed that until the York Central development was in place the viability of this site was questionable.

 

The latest transport model suggests a predicted am peak usage of 400 cars in 2021 with all projected developments in place and improvements to the public transport system undertaken. Detailed information using the latest transport model is not available for variations to current traffic levels as the scheme is not programmed to be implemented before 2011.”

 

(iv)      From Cllr Richard Watson:

            "Can the Executive Member give more details of the Road Safety Programme?"

 

“We are delighted that the Road Safety grant has allowed a coordinated programme to be drawn up targeting known “at risk” groups.

 

Work related driving under the banner Your Driving Your Business has focussed on employers who require employees to drive as part of their job.   We have worked in Partnership with the Chamber of Commerce on targeted road safety campaigns, developing a toolbox resource on managing road risk  and Business Travel Plans.  The latest campaign was entitled “Don’t get Blood on your hands ”to help employers understand safer business driving.

 

For Young drivers/passengers there is a campaign entitled Alive2Drive which includes posters and street theatre; a Youngdriver image campaign;  powered-two-wheel training;  a  Pass Plus discount scheme which is course for young drivers after they have passed their test  and we are also working towards an Interactive DVD.

 

Work in schools is ongoing with a primary school Be Safe Be Seen campaign, Road Safety theatre in education and the provision of resources to compliment road safety training and the school travel service.   In Secondary schools there has been Smart Risk productions and Bereaved parent workshops.

 

To complement the Main route speed campaigns we have produced Community Speed Watch materials.

 

The next campaign to be launched in October “It’s not me.   It’s other drivers” is aimed at experienced drivers and includes a “test your driving event” in the City Centre.

 

Partnership work with North Yorkshire Police supports additional targeted enforcement in support of campaign work and we worked with  North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service  when the changes to child car seats requirements were introduced.

 

The Council also supports national campaigns such as those based on based on DfT research into the most common contributory factors in road crashes and analysis of over a thousand fatal crashes.   There are also 4 projects per year as part of the National THINK! Campaign.

The funding also allows us to undertake qualitative research to assess the impact of the programme.”

 

The Guillotine fell at this point in the meeting and Members agreed to accept written answers to the remaining questions.¹

 

(v)       From Cllr Scott:

“Will the Executive Member pledge to work towards increasing the age usage for YoZone Cards up to 18 yrs, as a way to encourage bus usage, and look to extend the 9.30pm barrier to at least 10pm to help many young people who attend evening activities across the City?”

 

(vi)      From Cllr Merrett:

            “Can the Executive Member explain why First have withdrawn the 10 ticket and give Council details of her discussions with First over this matter?”

 

(vii)     From Cllr Moore:

            "I note that the dig at Hungate is the biggest archaeological project in the City since Coppergate, are there are plans for educational visits to this dig?"

 

(viii)    From Cllr Simpson-Laing:

            “With regard to road safety, can the Executive Member explain the increase of both traffic on York's roads, as recently reported at the Traffic Congestion Scrutiny, and the increase in KSI number's as recently reported to the Executive?”

 

(ix)      From Cllr Simpson-Laing:

            “Whilst the Executive Member is keen to report the success in the area of Car Parking can she comment and explain the reason for its outstanding failure, that being compared with other similar Local Authorities CYC has more Parking Attendants who issue less PCN's, and spend less of their working day on patrolling?”