Contact: Philippa Smart e mail:[email protected], ext 7336

1. Summary

1.1 At the Policy and Resources Policy and Review Committee meeting held in October 2006 the following scrutiny topics were endorsed, as proposed by the Environment and Transportation Policy and Review Committee:

- Motorway Diversion Routes

- Ranking Mechanisms for Bus Services

1.2 Scrutiny workshops for each of the above topics took place on the 12 and 13 December 2006 respectively. The workshops were open to all non executive elected members, and attracted minority as well as majority group attendance. Write ups of the workshops, including outcomes arrived at, are attached as Appendices to this report.

1.3 As outlined in Hampshire County Council Policy Review Committees Operating Protocols, the results from scrutiny reviews are reported back to the parent Policy and Review Committee; when considering the report of a working group a Policy and Review Committee will review how any recommendations they ratify should be pursued. Recommendations can be made to an individual Executive Member, to Cabinet or Full Council, as the committee deems appropriate.

2. Recommendations

2.1 Recommendations arising from the scrutiny workshops are as follows:

a) Motorway Diversion Routes.

- support for the three signing improvements identified within the broader proposals for Motorway diversions

- support for ITS software and hardware improvements and upgrades

- approval of the concept of managed diversion routes, and the need for further partnership work with the Highways Authority and members on the details of specific routes, in particular seven routes discussed at the workshop

b) Ranking Mechanisms for Bus Services.

- support for a new option for change (Appendix One of workshop write up), arising from consideration of three others scrutinised at the meeting, reflecting the views of the participating workshop attendees in relation to:

· the availability of alternative services

· value for money

· wider Passenger Transport Network

2.2 Additional comments, at variance with the consensus, have been contributed by individual workshop participants in response to the workshop write up and are as follows:

Cllr. C. Bailey: unhappiness with increasing the scores for value for money

Cllr. E. Neal:

1. the new approach is too complicated

2. as very few Councillors were present, and three Councillors cannot remember being invited to attend, the groups conclusions must be questioned. The start time of the workshop may have put some Councillors off attending.

2.3 In receiving the results of the two scrutinies, members of the Environment and Transportation Policy and Review committee are now in a position to ratify the recommendations, to decide any response in relation to the additional comments, and to decide how recommendations endorsed will be put to the Executive.

3. Financial implications

3.1 None as a direct result of this report

4. Impact Assessment

4.1 None as a result of this report

5. Crime Prevention

5.1 None as a result of this report

6. Section 100 - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied on to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB: this includes-

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

None.

Appendix One

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND REVIEW COMMITTEE

SCRUTINY WORKSHOP - 12 DECEMBER 2006

Chute Room, Elizabeth 11 Court, The Castle, Winchester

SUBJECT: MOTORWAY DIVERSION ROUTES

PRESENT

Chairman

p Councillor P.R.C.Hutcheson

Councillors:

p Mrs.C.A.Bailey p E.J.Neal

p A.P.Collett p P. Mason

P.R.Edgar p Roger.H.Price J.P.

p Mrs.C.A.Leversha p S.A.Wheale

Officers:

Peter Bayless

Graham Carter

Philippa Smart

Also in attendance: Guy Berresford, Highways Agency

1. Introduction

1.1 Councillor. Hutcheson welcomed everyone present and handed over to Peter Bayless, who outlined the background to the workshop, sanctioned by the Policy and Resources Policy and Review Committee in October 2006. Peter introduced Guy Beresford, from the Highways Agency, who began the presentation by setting the scene in broad terms.

2. Presentation - scene setting

2.1 Guy Beresford explained that the Highways Agency (HA) is continually seeking to find ways to reduce congestion on the roads that it is responsible for, namely Motorways and trunk roads. The National Guidance Framework (2005) established the basis on which collaboration between the HA and Local Highways Authorities (LHAs) involves the agencies in working together to ensure the least disruption to the travelling public, particularly where accidents and congestion are concerned. A partnership approach with Hampshire County Council to the matter under consideration at the workshop is proposed.

2.2 In response to a question regarding likely frequency of diversions needing to

be put in place, the HA representative assured the members that this is likely to be rare, possibly two to four times a month as a response to an emergency.

While diversions could also be in response to planned road works, these are more usually undertaken at night, and the need for a diversion to be set up would be less frequent.

2.3 It was acknowledged that in an emergency, traffic re-routes itself of its own

accord. The suggestion implicit in the proposals to be considered is that it is better to have a signed diversion route, rather than nothing at all.

3 Presentation - proposals

3.1 Peter Bayless talked the meeting through a series of proposed diversion routes

from the M3, M27, A3, A31, A34, A27, A3M, and A303.

3.2 Proposals that were supported were those relating to road closures on:

· M3 north of Basingstoke: between junctions 4A and 5, and 5 and 6

· M3 Basingstoke: between junction 6 and 7. Proposals are being put to the Executive member for his agreement to signing improvements to the A30 Ringway being undertaken as part of the Highways Agency improvement schemes.

· M3 Winchester: between junction 9 and 10

· M3 Winchester to Eastleigh: between junction 11 and 12

· M3 Eastleigh: between junction 12 and 13

· M27 West: between junction 2 and 3, and 3 and 5

· M27 East: between junction 5 and 7, 7 and 8, 8 and 9. Proposals for signing improvements to the A27 Titchfield to Sarisbury are being made to the Executive Member

· A3 North of Petersfield: between Griggs Green and Longmoor Interchange

· A3 Petersfield between Sheet Link and Western Interchange

· A3 South of Petersfield: between Petersfield and junction 3 of the A3(M)

· A34 North of Bullington: between Dallington Interchange and Highdare Common

· A27 Havant: between Langstone Roundabout and Warblington Roundabout, and between Harts Farm Interchange and Langstone Roundabout

· A3M Havant: between junction 4 and 5, and between junction 3 and 4

· A3M Cowplain: between junction 2 and 3

· A303 West of Bullington: between Picket Twenty and Bullington Cross, both directional routes

· A303 Andover: between Monxton Road and Winchester Road

· A303 West of Andover: between Parkhouse Cross and Salisbury Road

3.3 Those where members identified the need for further attention were as

follows:

· linking the diversion on the M3 north of Basingstoke (junctions 4 and 4A) to existing work on the A30

· the use of adjusted signals at junction 9 of the M3 (Basingstoke to Winchester), where traffic diverted at junction 7 rejoins the motorway

· of two M3 Winchester diversion routes relating to a motorway closure between junction 10 and 11, the preferred option was that which diverted traffic between junctions 8 and 11. Proposals are being put to the Executive member for a North Walls Winchester Variable Message Sign to inform motorists of incidents on the motorway funded by the Highways Agency

· the proposed route for north bound diverted traffic on the M3 Eastleigh, between junctions 12 and 13

· signing affecting the Segensworth roundabout from junction 9 of the M27 East, when a closure is between junction 9 and 11

· where traffic rejoins the M27 East when a closure is between junctions 11 and 12

· the proposed diversion route for a closure between Cadnam and Ashley Heath on the A31 New Forest

4 Outcome

The chairman thanked the Members taking part in the Motorway diversion routes scrutiny workshop, and explained that he would be conveying their views to Councillor Kendal, Executive member for Environment for consideration. These included:

a) support for the three signing improvements identified within the broader proposals for Motorway diversions

b) support for ITS software and hardware improvements and upgrades

c) approval of the concept of managed diversion routes, and the need for

further partnership work with the Highways Authority and members on the details of specific routes.

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND REVIEW COMMITTEE

SCRUTINY WORKSHOP - 13 DECEMBER 2006

Wessex Room, Ashburton Court East, The Castle, Winchester

SUBJECT: RANKING MECHANISMS FOR LOCAL BUS SERVICE CONTRACTS

PRESENT

Chairman

P Councillor P. Devereux

Councillors:

p Mrs.C.A.Bailey p Mrs.C.A.Lerversha

Mrs.E.M.Byrom p P. Mason

A.P.Collett p E.J.Neal

a P.Edgar p S.A.Wheale

p Keith.House

Officers:

John Mariner

Philippa Smart

Andrew Wilson

1. Welcome and introduction

1.1 Councillor Devereux welcomed the participants to the scrutiny workshop, reminding those present that the Environment and Transportation Policy and Resources Committee, in selecting the topic of a ranking mechanisms for

subsidised bus services as a topic for scrutiny, had decided to open the

scrutiny event to all Members in view of the wide range of potential interest.

The task was to challenge the information presented, to reflect the public

interest and to draw conclusions that could be fed through to the Executive.

2. Background, current situation and reasons for change

2.1 Andrew Wilson from Hampshire County Council's Environment Department

spoke about the background prompting a change to the current arrangements. This includes rising costs in the bus industry and the need to increase in bus passenger journeys over the coming years. Ongoing district Area Passenger Transport Reviews across the county are looking at improvements to optimise the current spending on transport. Factors such as accessibility of transport and social inclusion now feature prominently in transport planning and need to be reflected in the ranking mechanism. Hampshire County Council's current approach to ranking has been in place for a number of years without any reconsideration.

3. Proposals for change

3.1 While services are currently ranked according to a single financial criteria,

namely the subsidy cost per passenger journey, the proposed new mechanism,

as outlined by John Mariner, will be broader.

3.2 Instead of a single criteria, the proposal is that a number of criteria will be used to judge each route. These criteria are:

· need

· service characteristics

· availability of alternative services

· value for money

· average passengers per journey

· averaged score for level of deprivation of wards served

· Wider Passenger Transport network

Most of the criteria form part of approaches to ranking that other transport authorities have adopted. Each criteria has sub criteria and each of these has a score or weighting.

3.3 Three options, in addition to a baseline, were offered for consideration, the baseline reflecting best practice, as adopted in other authorities. A sample of contracted routes had been selected to evaluate the scoring options; each offered slightly different emphases to the other. The total score would replace cost per passenger journey as the mechanisms for deciding how services are ranked. A sample of services ranked according to current and proposed mechanisms was shared.

4 Discussion

4.1 Members examined the relative merits of the proposed criteria and different

options for weighting. Comments included:

· concern that rural areas would not be disadvantaged

· deprived areas need non deprived people to want to use buses as well as those less well off

· whether there was a need for a more complicated mechanism than the current simpler one

· challenge to the inclusion of `Wider Passenger Transport Network' as a criteria

· the need for additional weighting to be given to some criteria elements over others

· the suggestion that any variations to the criteria and options presented, arrived at through the scrutiny process, should be tested out against three or four routes to see if the results are realistic

5 Outcome

The consensus of the meeting was that a fourth option for change be drawn up

to reflect the preferences of Members in relation to criteria and scoring

expressed in the discussion. The changes were in relation to:

· the availability of alternative services

· value for money

· wider Passenger Transport Network

The content of such an option was drafted at the meeting, and is included as

Appendix One.

The views of Members taking part in the scrutiny workshop, as expressed in

the fourth option, will be reported back to the Environment and Transportation

Policy and Resources Committee, prior to being recommended to the Executive Member for the Environment.

Councillor Mrs.Devereux thanked everyone for taking part and closed the workshop.