Letter to the Post on 20mph

Dear Sir

I read with interest your item about a poll you conducted on 20mph speed limits (‘Poll shows Bristol wants city 20mph limit scrapped except near hospitals and schools’, 27/8/15).

As a supporter of the slower, safer speeds that a properly enforced 20mph offers, I find myself asking how far do those who support this view think a 20mph zone should extend around a school?

To me, it is obvious that if we want streets to be safe for children, then we should be aiming to make them safe for children for the whole of their journey between home and school. Thus zones need to be large enough to make it safe for them should they choose to walk or cycle. And of course, we should also be looking after the safety of the young, the old, all of us in fact – where we live.

The point being that you end up with an extensive area which is rightly at 20mph, which rapidly approaches the scheme we have now.

Henbury loop

I attended the call in meeting this morning re the Henbury loop. I had thought of a number of things to say, most of which I didn't, but may hold on until it is debated at the meeting of full council which will now be arranged.

All party support

I’d first off like to congratulate the Wet of England partnership on getting all four party groups on Bristol City Council on the same side – in opposition to your decision to go for a Henbury spur rather than a Henbury loop.

Sign in

I am not going to pretend that I signed the call-in papers because of the process. I signed it because I disagreed with the decision. I am fully supportive of having a Henbury loop over other solutions.

That isn’t to say that I don’t have problems with the decision-making process itself.

Commitment to Public transport

As a Green, I am committed to having the best sustainable transport solution for the city of Bristol (and surrounds) in order to create a truly sustainable future. This means many things – for example dramatically improving the bus service, or improving facilities for those who cycle. But it also  includes having the best possible  public transport solutions for the city. We need a local rail network which allows as many people as possible to get to get to all of the major venues, employment centres and retail centres in the area. Clearly this includes having a rail network which allows people flexibility in their travel decisions. It also means taking an imaginative , ambitious can-do approach.

Why a Henbury loop?

In our opinion, the point of the Henbury loop is that it is a significant part of the basis of a rail network. Not all of Bristol, but a significant portion of it. If you do that,  it is the basis for a large number of the other possibilities for improving he rail network, especially in the North of the city. And, as a matter of principle, we need to be making best use of the existing rail infrastructure.

My experience of this decision

Following Green Party successes in the council elections last May, we were allocated a seat on the West of England scrutiny panel for the first time. This is because we replaced the LDs on the committee. I was invited to one meeting, but was unable to attend due to a prior commitment. Almost immediately afterwards, I was notified of the intention to make the decision to choose the Henbury spur over the loop.

This notification came on a Thursday morning, saying the decision was going to be made the following Friday and asking for comments by the Wednesday lunchtime.

I spent Thursday preparing for a Place scrutiny committee meeting on the Monday afternoon. I had a prior commitment (to visit my parents) which took me out of Bristol from the Friday to the Monday lunchtime. I went straight into the committee meeting (which I chaired). I had another meeting that evening.

This meant I had the Tuesday and Wednesday morning to read, analyse and respond to the reports for the committee.

The report was 70 pages long, and the key information is contained within a GRIP analysis which is on the WoE website, which is 1330 pages long. In other words, to participate, I would have to have analysed 1400 pages in about a day and a bit.

I hope you agree that the idea of doing this sensibly in the time available is absurd. God help me had I had a job.

 

I might add that at the scrutiny committee meeting I did not attend, I note there were some 57 projects with a total cost of something like £150m – which are to be scrutinised in 4 meetings per year.

Benefit cost ratio analysis

According to the WoE Assurance Framework rules:

The BCR of less than 2.0 for all the Loop-based options (2a, 2b) mean that they still do not qualify for funding from the Local Growth Fund under the West of England’s Assurance Framework rules

 

I have a few comments to make about this:

1. It is interesting to note that the use of benefit:cost ratio dates back to 1848. One wonders if a more up-to-date system of analysis exists.
2. A critique of the system suggests:

• A cost benefit analysis requires that all costs and benefits be identified and appropriately quantified. Unfortunately, human error often results in common cost benefit analysis errors such as accidentally omitting certain costs and benefits due to the inability to forecast indirect causal relationships
• Another disadvantage of the cost benefit analysis is the amount of subjectivity involved when identifying, quantifying, and estimating different costs and benefits
• Since this evaluation method estimates the costs and benefits for a project over a period of time, it is necessary to calculate the present value. This equalizes all present and future costs and benefits by evaluating all items in terms of present-day values, which eliminates the need to account for inflation or speculative financial gains. Unfortunately, this poses a significant disadvantage because, even if one can accurately calculate the present value, there is no guarantee that the discount rate used in the calculation is realistic.

Applying this to the specific example of the Henbury loop, I immediately ask myself the following questions:

In calculating the cost benefit ratio for the Henbury loop, what factors have been included in the calculation, and how have they been included?

How sensitive is the methodology to change of variable? It has been suggested to me that a small change to the input could result in a large change to the output. Is this correct? (ie how reliable are the figures?)

Some things are directly quantifiable. Other things are much harder to assess. Has the additional congestion  on a variety of roads in North Bristol been taken into account? Has the contribution of to air pollution and therefore increased ill-health been taken into account?

Other submissions

I am sure we can all come up with are own set of similar questions. (And I note – for example – that Martin Garrett of TfGB has come up with a set, including

1. What is impact of RPS?
2. Do ‘Big Players’ such as Centro (West Midlands) or Greater Manchester have their own versions of the BCR rules?  (Martin says they do and this is because their relationship with the DfT is different and their vision is truly regional.  They bring in economic development and social factors and take a regional view of funding and need, and then focus regional resources.) If we have different rules of assessment, which is correct?
3. BCR methodology might be useful when considering marginal improvements to an existing network, but it largely ignores potential network effects and is even more inappropriate when there is no recognisable modern public transport network in the first place, as is the case here. How have the impacts across the full network been taken into account?
    
   I further note that Rob Dixon has put in a statement of behalf of FosBR listing a set of reasons why the decision to proceed with a spur rather than a loop is open to debate. I would like to see these questions answered point by point.
    

Political  support for Henbury loop

I refer you to the document signed by George Ferguson, Charlotte Leslie and others

‘Outline Business Case for the Henbury Loop’

http://www.activenp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Outline-Business-Case-for-the-Henbury-Loop-1.pdf

As the name suggests, it supports the Henbury loop. Please note that one of the signatories is the elected mayor of Bristol.

I also draw you attention to the motion put by Cllr Weston and passed by Bristol City Council at its meeting on 20^th January 2015. Passed by 58 votes to zero, it includes the statement:

To this end this Council:

- Fully supports the opening of a Henbury Loop in North Bristol, with new Stations at Ashley Down, Horfield, Filton North and Henbury and believes that an additional stop at Charlton should be explored

 

I note that one of those voting in favour of the amendment was Cllr Simon Cook.

I assume that officers of Bristol City Council have communicated this fact to officers of the West of England partnership. I wondered how this decision had been taken into account?

What consultation has there been?

As a newly-appointed councillor to the committee, I have not had the opportunity to scrutinise this decision in any way, shape or form.

What I would like to have seen is presentations to councillors of the business case, allowing questioning of the assumptions and the case in general. This would be followed by an opportunity to either support or oppose the proposal (prior to a decision being made).

I am not aware of the public being meaningfully consulted.

Conclusion

My conclusion is this. I have sufficient doubts about the scrutiny of the West of England partnership in general, and of this decision in particular to believe it right and proper that this decision be referred to a full meeting of Bristol City Council.

I would like it to be preceded by briefings of councillors by officers and responses to the questions raised in public forum. I actually think such an approach could be of benefit to all concerned.

 

Letter to South Bristol Voice re libraries

re your item 'Libraries saved after huge campaign'

Campaigners will be delighted to have 'saved' local libraries at Marksbury Road and Wick Road'. Many people will have claimed credit for this ranging from the campaigners themselves to politicians of all hues. And , indeed, in the case of the campaigners they have certainly done their bit.

However, it needs to be pointed out that we have not got rid of the cut. It has simply moved elsewhere.

Labour and Conservative councillors on Bristol City Council voted through £83million of cuts to its 3 year budget in February 2014 . This including cutting £1.1m from the library service - which is the origin of the need for change. 

Of course, the real reason for the cuts is the government austerity programme.

So - having saved the libraries, which the Green Party supports as a vital public service, remember - someone else will face the cut. Someone else will lose their livelihood. Someone else will lose their service.

Yours


Cllr Charlie Bolton and Cllr Deb Joffe

Bristol Green Party

Statement to cabinet supporting energy efficiency proposals

Statement to cabinet on agenda items;

5 Report title: Warmer Homes Project – External Wall insulation to High-Rise and Low-Rise Flats in Bristol

 

6 Procurement of Domestic Heating Installation; and New Bathroom

Installation Contracts for Council owned homes.

 

Bristol Green Party councillors would like to welcome the proposal to spend £70m on insulating the 45 multi-story and low-rise blocks of flats – which includes 1,715 individual flats. We further welcome the proposal to procure domestic heat insulation.

 

The first proposal has the capacity to cut the fuel bills to the residents of these blocks and therefore cut levels of fuel poverty. It will also cut Bristol’s carbon emissions. It is therefore a win-win project.

 

The second project also has the capacity to deliver similar benefits – and, in general – we welcome it too.

 

We do wish to make a number of comments however:

 

1.    We note that the Economy 7 heating system will be replaced with gas central heating in something like 200 properties per year. While we accept that these will be a more efficient heating system, we are aware that an electricity-based system is usually easier to source from renewable energy generation. Gas central heating, however efficient, offers greater challenges in ensuring a renewable energy supply. We therefore ask that, where possible, measures are taken to ensure the future use of  renewable sources that are sustainable and environmentally friendly.

2.    We ask that any heating systems installed are future-proofed so that they are compatible with any potential district heating systems and/or – as far as possible – compatible with renewable energy sources

3.    We ask - given this is a 30 year programme, and that by the end of this timeframe, (unless the Tories abolish our climate change targets), we will be close to the point whereby we should have cut our carbon emissions by 80% -– will this programme be making a sufficient contribution to our emissions reduction targets?

4.    In view of the Tory government attacks on social housing, we also ask if these proposals are affected by changes to the potential rental income the council may receive into its housing revenue account

 

We ask the mayor to take this into account, when making his decision.

 

 

Speech on Place scrutiny intergrated transport enquiry day

Thankyou

I have to say my memory of the integrated transport inquiry day was that we received a massive amount of information over a relatively short period of time, and then did not have adequate time to discuss the detail.

I suppose it sums up one of the problems of scrutiny. ‘Integrated’ transport is a huge issue. You won’t just do it in one day. The problem therefore is to either devote a lot of your limited time on such an issue or to focus down on a subset of it.

The second point I’d like to make about the day was the thought that I’d seen quite a bit of it before. This is partly true – in 2009 I was a member of a sustainable transport select committee which met a number of times over the course of the year and came up with a set of recommendations.

These included the need for a transport authority – a combined authority is still being discussed, of course. It included the need for smart cards, something still being asked for.

It mentioned the need for improved travel information to allow people to make informed choices.
It talked of ‘Improve cross boundary working in the Greater Bristol Travel area.’ Also suggestions made in the latest report.

SO I’m not actually sure whether or not to be pleased or alarmed to see so many things repeated in a report 6 years after its predecessor. On the one hand, there is a consistency in recognising the need. On the other, progress does seem to be painfully slow.

Having said that, there are parts of the report which are clearly valuable. For example, the report calls for :

‘ a universal approach to traffic management and network development be developed between West of England (WoE) authorities, to increase co-ordination and ensure that there is strategic overview at the planning stage and when developing operational infrastructure. ‘

I’m sure everyone would like to see a consistency of approach. - although my current view of the West of England partnership is that they already have this as long as it benefits the Tory shires.

I was certainly interested to see the item about ‘increasing segregated bus routes’. I would certainly support this on the grounds that it uses existing road space, rather than taking out green space.

I also note that the day and the report included a discussion on bus quality contracts. I disagree with the item in the report stating that ‘that approach is unlikely to work in Bristol alone as the boundaries are too tight to design an effective network’. I remember quite specifically asking the expert speaker about this issue - and he saw no reason why you could not have agreements which crossed boundaries. I believe there is merit to further consideration of bus quality contracts or seeking to gain similar powers.

There are many other aspects to integrating transport - cycling barely gets a mention - and yet we need to integrate cycling into both bus and rail services in a consistent and positive manner. We need to look at measures to increase the number of buses operating in the city. We need a Henbury loop. We need a station at Ashton Gate. We need to adopt the sort of measures contained in Sustrans excellent ‘Good transport guide’ produced for the Green capital project.

 

To sum up then, I see the inquiry day as making a contribution to the on-going need to address all aspects of improving sustainable transport in this city. I would, however, like to see much more rapid progress.

 

Camden Road bridge consultation

Strictly speaking, this is a response to the consultation from the new bridge (when it comes) to North St

We are extremely pleased that Camden Road bridge is being built. We are generally supportive of the proposals contained in this proposal and the likely increase in cycling and walking that it will bring.

 

However, we consider it vital that there is a controlled crossing over Coronation Road from the bridge to Camden Road itself.

 

We support the closure of Camden Road to traffic. There is an opportunity for this to be an entrance to Southville (or South Bristol even!).  We would like to see some sort of entry arch, some planters and perhaps a row of Sheffield cycle stands (with letters in the middle spelling out the word ‘Southville’).

 

The speed tables on Raleigh Road are likely to reduce speed on this road, which we regard as important, especially with the new school on Upton Road.  

My speech on the freeholdof the docks

Thankyou



The report before you today asks council to either accept the decision to sell the port freehold, or to refer it back to the mayor, with its views. I rise to ask the council to choose to 

‘To object to the decision and refer it back to the Mayor, together
with its views’

and for its view to be to ask George not to sell the port freehold.



First, I would like to make it clear that the Green Party is fully supportive of Avonmouth docks and wishes to succeed and for it to investment in its future for the benefit of the city, for local people, local jobs, and the local economy.

However, I oppose the sale of council land in principle, because council land is a community asset, and the council holds that land - in effect - in trust for the people of Bristol both now and for its future generations. The council’s job as trustees therefore is to manage that land, not to dispose of it.

Once land is sold, it is lost to the city for ever, and Bristol’s current and future citizens are thereby impoverished for ever – all for a short term financial addition to its treasury.

I am also concerned that the loss of freehold and therefore the handing over of all control to the company could result in the sale of the business, or see its exploitation for purposes far beyond those concerned with a successful port.



I am aware that the council has long since lost most of its control over the port authority.

 I am aware of the officer view of the relative value of the £10m compared with not selling.

However, I am not convinced that the sale price is sufficiently high to warrant the permanent loss of such a large area of land.

Having said that, I suspect that the mayor will approve the sale in which case, I ask him to take on board and put in safeguards for some of the concerns raised in public forum and elsewhere.

These include:



- we need to ensure good rail good passenger rail access for both staff and visitors to Avonmouth and Royal Portbury,


- we need to ensure the Henbury loop is retained for the use of passenger traffic
- we need to improve rail links from the docks to the rail network
- ensure that any sale of the freehold allows the full development of renewables on the land


To sum up, then, if the mayor is intent on going ahead with its sale, I urge him to ensure the relevant safeguards are built in. However, I do not think that the sale is actually justified at all. I ask him to reverse his decision and hold the land for future generations of Bristol residents.