Highways & Transportation matters in South Ribble
The chairman welcomed all those present especially County Councillor Fillis and Mr Capper, who were pleased to answer questions from members of both the committee and public on highways and transportation matters in South Ribble. The chairman indicated that the discussion would be split into topic areas; highways, buses and trains and, unlike usual he would first invite the public to ask questions before the committee or other members of the council. The invited guests responded to questions as follows: Highways
Q
You were appointed the Cabinet member with responsibility for highways and transportation last May. During that time what priorities do you see for the future?
A
The Cabinet member confirmed the plans were developing rapidly, both for highways and public transport (buses & trains). The county council was currently working on a programme for highways maintenance. A reason for this was the government wanted highway authorities to look at a larger footprint, Lancashire as a whole rather than at district level. There would be a change in the method of highway maintenance whereby first priority might not be those in the worst condition, but based on evidence to maintain the highway network to the best of its ability. This new approach would be debated with the districts in the county. In respect of public transport, County Councillor Fillis looked for greater integration of buses and trains (a one ticket area). Also he looked to introduce Quality Bus Contracts, in which the county council would take responsibility for the running and hiring and in turn the profit/non-profit bus routes would subsidise each other. At present the bus companies simply take all the profit. The county council would shortly open this proposal for discussion with the districts and residents. It was taking all the risks, but this was an aim for the future as the county council felt that local people were not well served by the current system. Q
Was the master plan for highways and transportation still being thought through?
A
County Councillor Fillis confirmed that this was making good progress in many areas, the county council hoped to go out to debate this later this year. Q
Residents of Farington Moss and surrounding area were aware the area was earmarked for large development and had concerns regarding the impact of this, which already had issues regarding roads, infrastructure and flooding.
A
County Councillor Fillis stated he was more than happy to come and meet and discuss this with residents and also local ward councillors. Q
The maintenance of roads
A
The Cabinet member stated that the county council?s current maintenance programme had been in place for a number of years. All reported pot holes should be addressed within 30 days (actual about 90-93%). However, the number of pot holes continued to increase and attending to those resulted in the rest of the network not receiving sufficient maintenance. Therefore there needed to be a short term change and the county council needed to look at the long term. One aspect was surface dressing, which sealed the road against water and subsequent damage. Also simply filling in a pot hole was only temporary and really needed an area/section of the carriage way to be patched. He indicated that unfortunately during the change process things would get worse before better, but would than enable funding to be switched in to a long term strategy. The county council needed to have this discussion with others, the highways budget had reduced and therefore funding needed to be used better. County Councillor Fillis stressed that emergency works would still be carried out regardless of budget. Q
Sub-contractors ? watched and no idea what they were doing, pot hole had re-opened within a couple of weeks.
A
Mr Capper replied that most of highway works were carried out in-house by the county council?s own highways maintenance workforce (about 400 staff). However, specialised works/treatments were contracted out. County Councillor Fillis added that he had witnessed similar himself. Hence why the change in the way pot holes were dealt with and were not being chased as much, and now looked and attended to that area of road (square/patch). Other operators directly in the highway were utility companies (such as electricity, gas, telecommunication and water) who used their own staff or contractors to carry out the highway works. However, the county council was only allowed to examine up to one-third (33%) of such works, of which on examination on average 40% failed and they had to fix it. Whilst the county council monitored when and where the utilities operated and had raised this issue with the government, under current legislation (felt to be inadequate) there was nothing that could be done about the remaining two-thirds (66%) of works. The Cabinet member felt that on the whole the level of workmanship by the county council?s highways teams was very good but accepted in the past there had been areas of bad practise. Q
Traffic light controlled junctions
A
The Cabinet member acknowledged that motorists complained about having to wait at junctions. The county council would look at such areas of concern but highway safety came first (for both motorists and pedestrians). In Fishergate/Corporation Street, Preston, the county council had just introduced a shared space scheme and as part of that had switched off all the traffic lights. It appeared that the traffic flowed quicker. Location would be looked at on an individual basis. Q
Speed humps - design
A
Mr Capper indicated that criteria set out the specific design of road humps, it was a significant issue if the road was a bus route. Therefore to minimise the adverse impact on the ride of bus passengers whole length road humps were avoided. Instead bus cushions were used that did not unduly affect wide axle vehicles such as buses, but would still affect and cause smaller vehicle such as cars and vans to slow down. Q
Cycle lanes ? cars parked in the lanes and were dangerous
A
The Cabinet member accepted that the current scheme of cycle lanes made little sense but the county council was looking at a new strategy, were most of the provision would be off-road. Historically, the approach had been piecemeal with some narrow and others wide and it was felt the county?s cycle network was not up to standard. The new plans would move cyclists away from traffic, such as shared footpaths.
Q
City Deal ? funds used to improve existing roads/network first
A
Whilst this would have been good, County Councillor Fillis confirmed that funding through the City Deal would not be available to use on existing roads. Q
Pedestrian Crossings - criteria
A
Mr Capper indicated that the introduction of a pedestrian crossing was based on a vehicle/pedestrian calculation assessed against criteria and sufficient demand. The county council received requests/concerns from both councillors and the public, which would be looked at. In respect of new developments there was a lot of information about what activity (vehicle and pedestrian) it would generate and could look at provision through Section 106 funding. Q
Noise reduction tarmac ? criteria for use
A
Mr Capper stated that the county council used relatively quiet materials but did not use a specific noise reduction material but offered to provide the criteria for its use.
Q
Traffic lights v Roundabouts
A
Mr Capper stated that the decision between junctions being signalled controlled or by a roundabout depended what was happened on the road, there were studies/models to assess the appropriate choice for the location. It was confirmed that the county council would re-assess a location and make changes if a scheme was not working. Q
Limit on the number of inspections ? mandatory or advisory
A
It was confirmed that this was mandated by government regulation and the 40% failures were the responsibility of the utility companies. The sub-contractors that had carried out the sub-standard work were hired by the utility companies. Q
Planning applications ? does the county council?s highways service always comment
A
The county council received and assessed substantial information on planning applications from developers and/or consultants. There was a lot of traffic modelling information available to which it and planning consultants could readily access. It was confirmed that the county council commented on all planning applications from the borough. Q
City Deal ? indication of when a new River Ribble crossing
A
No, not at present. Q
Planning applications ? frustration with the county council?s highways services? often lack of adverse comment
A
The Cabinet member commented that he had for many years served on West Lancashire DC and over the years similarly seen small/large developments with perceived highways issues. The county council provided a professional judgement on highway matters, a district council could if it wished also hire its own highway advisors. Planning applications were looked at individually on a technical basis, whilst councillors used local knowledge, but they needed to accept the professional judgement provided. Often there were highway objections/concerns to planning applications from people and the issues had not materialised. In cases where they had materialised, it would listen.
Q
Hennel Lane, Walton-le-Dale ? weight restriction
A
The county council had looked at the question of introducing a weight restriction on Hennel Lane. The type of traffic using the road had been assessed and based on that information and, that it would create additional traffic at the right-turn by the Yew Tree PH, the county council had not supported a weight restriction on Hennel Lane. Q
Vehicles parking on pavements
A
It was not illegal unless there was a traffic regulation order in place regulating the parking of vehicle. If there was an area of concern, inform the county council and it would be looked at. Q
Un-adopted highways such as Craigflower Court, Bamber Bridge
A
The county council offered to take back and look into the outstanding highway adoption of Craigflower Court. That situation was not new, there had been a list of outstanding adoptions across Lancashire for many years. The county council was currently working with Chorley to overcome this issue and stop the list increasing. Usual scenario was a developer would re-assure potential residents that the new road/highway would subsequently be adopted but in the meantime disappears to another development site. Also, it appeared to the county council that this topic was not always given sufficient weight by solicitors when acting on behalf of residents when buying their property. Q
New development ? infrastructure first
A
Planning applications for developments were considered by the county council on there merits. Whilst new infrastructure first as indicated in the county council?s Transportation Plan and the South Ribble Local Plan would be ideal, there still might not be objections to a particular development if that was not provided first. Those two documents had trigger points at which the highway network needed to be a certain standard and individual developments would be assessed accordingly. Q
Cycle route network ? extension of dual use surfaces to urban areas
A
This was already taking place, such as Fishergate, Preston (cars, pedestrians and cyclists) and Ormskirk town centre was a dual use area (pedestrians and cyclists). The coun ty council was gathering evidence, taking a step by step approach and learning all the time. For example, it was rare to see pedestrians using the footpaths along the A59 which could be good early gains. However, in more urban areas more care was needed as pedestrian could not hear cyclists coming. The evidence so far indicated that they were safe. Prior to introduction there would be consultation with the community and businesses. Whilst dual use certainly provided better safety for cyclists the county council also wanted pedestrians to be happy. Buses
Q
Changes to bus routes ? prior consultation
A
After quite a number of public meetings the county council decided not to pursue its proposal to withdraw certain subsidised bus routes. It was now thinking that a bus route could not be taken in isolation. The issue was empty seats and the need to run a better service, such using a size of bus appropriate to the demand. The county council hoped to consult on bus services in the autumn. As mentioned earlier it was looking at quality contracts for a fairer deal and how to deliver this. The bus operators were not happy and saw the county council as interfering. However, it was working on behalf of local communities to have access to good public transportation. In December 2013, a private operator providing service no.80 simply announced to passengers that it would not be back. The county council was left in the position of providing an alternative service. There was a need to work better and also with the Traffic Commissioner. The county council?s role was to provide timetable information and non-statutorily to subsidise certain bus routes. It was looking at areas and there would be a full discussion before there was a major change to the way bus services were provided. Q
Chorley Hospital ? service no.125
A
It was acknowledged that most traffic was north-south and not east-west and that this might adversely affect some residents. However, this was an unregulated service and the bus companies chose the direction they wanted the buses to go, the county council had no regulatory powers to tell which way to go or to expand a service. In respect of the no.125, Stagecoach indicated that going into Chorley Hospital?s site caused delays to the published bus timetable. This could have resulted in Stagecoach being reported to the Traffic Commissioner. The situation at Chorley Hospital was not alone, the bus operator of the service to the Queen Victoria Hospital, Blackpool had also stopped going into the site. In respect of the service no.125, the county council was more than happy to attend a meeting with interested parties to discuss a way forward. It also suggested an approach to the Traffic Commissioner to see if a delay would be acceptable without the bus operator being reprimanded. Q
Now Cards
A
It was confirmed that Blackpool had withdrawn from the Now Card Scheme as it was not felt to be financially sustainable (?400,000 pa). The county council had offered to pay ?37,000 pa for Lancashire but Blackpool chose not to accept the offer and still withdrew. It was understood as a result that Blackpool Trams only accepted Blackpool Now Cards. Q
Bus stop - opposite pedestrian refuge on Chorley Road, Bamber Bridge
A
The county council offered to have a look at the appropriateness of the siting the pedestrian refuge and bus stop at this location. Q
Major new developments in South Ribble ? increased public transport provision
A
In any event, the county council felt it was important to improve the public transport network. However, this depended on funding and as the county council did not control/regulate the bus service. Whilst it would work with the bus operators it was their decision where they were prepared to run services. Rail
Q
Electrification of the Manchester to Blackpool line ? raising bridges
A
No specifics were known at this stage, full details were not yet finalised but possibly by July/August when they would be publicised and everyone would know. Q
Rail capacity ? local lines and rolling stock
A
The county council?s input was consultation on proposals. Whilst not knowing much about the Manchester ? Leyland line, the meeting was informed that improvements were planned on the Ormskirk ? Preston line in three stages. As travel time reduced demand would increase and the county council would apply pressure on the train companies to increase rolling stock. The county council discussed/negotiated where it could to make improvements to the rail network and would keep South Ribble updated on developments. Q
Leyland Railway Station ? improvements to disabled access
A
The county council was a consultee like South Ribble council. Two years ago the government said to the 33 northern authorities to come together. As a result Blackburn, Blackpool, Cumbria and Lancashire formed the North Rail Project. The government proposed a franchise by 2017 to take over the running of the track. However, before Christmas a new government minister indicated that local authority input/involvement would be more consultative rather than how the franchise contract was formed. Q
Former Midge Hall Railway Station
A
The county council was aware of the area?s significant development following the closure of the railway station and confirmed it would provide as much support as possible to both OPSTA and South Ribble to have it re-opened. Q
High Speed 2 (HS2) ? views and route
A
Both the East and West Coast Mainline routes were reaching capacity and as there were no new highways, a third mainline route was planned as the way forward. Its introduction would free up capacity on the West Coast Mainline, enabling a reduction in travel times not too dissimilar to HS2. It was also understood that the Liverpool Super Port wanted to use the HS2 (not road) to move its freight. It was felt there was a case for HS2 to enable travellers to arrived on time, reduced car usage and freight off roads etc. It was hoped that more railway stations such as Preston would subsequently be considered. Q
Example where the Cabinet member had managed to change rail companies? proposals
A
No, not in his short time as the county council?s Cabinet member. There had been discussions/negotiation, but was more involved with the current proposals regarding the railway bridges in Chorley. Whilst the rail companies are prepared to work with the county council, in respect of rail operations and plans for the future there were pleasant conversations. There was only limited potential to fit this in with the transportation masterplan, but more influence working together with other local authorities as the ?north?. The chairman thanked County Councillor Fillis and Mr Capper for their attendance and their appreciated honest and frank responses to questions.
RESOLVED (unanimously): that
1. the committee thanks County Councillor John Fillis (Cabinet member for Highways & Transportation) and Shaun Capper (Assistant Director Local Network Management & Engineering Design [Highways]) for their attendance and responding to the committee?s enquiries;
2. the committee recognises there are a few issues that you will come back on;
3. the committee appreciates the county council?s commitment to consultation and in particular to being consulted on the Lancashire footprint review;
4. the committee appreciates the county council?s offer of support to resolve the problem of buses not stopping in the grounds of Chorley Hospital; and
5. the committee further to (4) above, invites the NW Traffic Commissioner, Stagecoach and Chorley Hospital to meet and discuss a way forward.
|