South Yorkshire Transport Users Group
18.01.17

SOUTH YORKSHIRE TRANSPORT USERS GROUP

18 JANUARY 2017

PRESENT: J Hoare (Chair)

J Brightmore (Ramblers - Sheffield Group), I Jenkinson

(Sheffield TUG), N Spetch (Vice-Chair/Rotherham TUG),

M Turner (Sheffield Transport For All), J Whittington (Barnsley

TUG), M Wilson (Member of the Public) and D Wrottesley

(Hope Valley Rail User Group)

C Cocken (SYPTE), R Cowling (SYPTE), S Guest (SYPTE),

M Jones (Stagecoach), M Lynam (SCR Exec Team),

G Richards (SCR Combined Authority), G Thomas (SYPTE)

and N Wragg (Stagecoach Supertram)

Apologies for absence were received from A Bell (Northern),

L Booth (Rotherham TUG), M Payling (Member of the Public)

and J Young (Stagecoach)

1 ELECTION OF CHAIR/VICE-CHAIR

The Group agreed that:

i) John Hoare be elected as Chair of the Group for the ensuing year.

ii) Nigel Spetchbe elected Vice-Chair of the Group for the ensuing year.

2 APOLOGIES

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were noted as above.

C Cocken announced that Richard Fieldhouse had decided to resign from the

Group. The Group thanked Richard for all his contributions over the years.

I Jenkinson requested that the Group considered whether it wanted to respond to

the HS2 consultation. It was decided this would be done under ‘Members Items’.

The Group expressed concern that First Group had not attended any meetings for

a considerable period of time.

Action: C Cocken to write to First Group to express the Group’s concerns.

3 SHEFFIELD CITY REGION TRANSPORT STRATEGY

The Chair welcomed M Lynam, PTE’s Interim Director of Strategy and Corporate

Affairs, to the meeting.

M Lynam gave a presentation on the proposals being worked on to refresh the

Transport Strategy.

The Transport Strategy would:

 Provide a clear and engaging narrative built around a data and evidence-based

approach

 Be cognitive of the of the complex governance structure in place

 Align with the various priorities and policies the key bodies currently endorse

 Allow SCR to interact with national programmes by extending the time horizon

 Be proportionate in scope

 Be informed by public consultation

 Fulfil SCR’s legal obligations – as the Sub-National Transport Body, SCR had a

statutory requirement under the Transport Act 2000, as amended by the Local

Transport Act 2008, to have a Transport Strategy.

The strategy covered the current period to 2026 and also looked further ahead to

capture long-term projects such as HS2.

D Wrottesley queried whether SCR supported the idea of a Trans-Pennine tunnel

incorporating rail tracks.

M Lynam replied that SCR do support rail improvements across the Pennines but

did not have a fixed position regarding the route.

Transport for the North were looking at this and all other options for improving

Trans-Pennine connectivity.

D Wrottesley commented that the proposed new route for HS2 prevented the

possibility of developing HS3 across the Pennines.

M Lynam replied that a number of existing routes provided partial solutions and all

were being considered.

The Chair noted that a visionary strategy with ambitious outcomes was something

the Government and Local Authorities should be concerned with; a series of

smaller, cheaper projects may deliver more benefits for the SCR and could be

delivered quickly.

M Lynam agreed stating that Transport for the North were more interested in

national and pan-northern projects; SCR would fund the smaller projects as

previously mentioned.

N Spetch queried what influence the SCR Mayor would have over the Transport

Strategy.

M Lynam replied that it was unclear at the moment, but it was expected the Mayor

would have some transport powers e.g. bus franchises.

The Chair thanked M Lynam for an interesting and informative presentation.

4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 NOVEMBER 2016

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 November 2016 were agreed as a correct

record.

5 TRANSPORT COMMITTEE BRIEFING

The Group considered an update from the SCRCA Transport Committee.

It was noted that the PTE had received £1.57 million from the DfT for the

development of a business case for Sheffield Supertram Renewals/Mass Transit –

renewal of track and vehicle infrastructure on the Supertram system.

It was hoped this would not just include renewal of existing infrastructure but also

improvements e.g. new routes.

Although there had been no official announcement, it was thought that the

Tram/Train project would be completed by the summer of 2018.

N Wragg confirmed that Network Rail were making progress with the necessary

work.

The Group discussed the difficulties in combining heavy rail with light rail and the

differences in legislation that applied.

D Wrottesley queried whether the new vehicles had been on the tracks.

N Wragg replied that some were still being commissioned and driver training

continued. The intention was to park one new tram at Middlewood and one at

Meadowhall, in the near future, and invite people to view them.

6 MEMBERS ITEMS

I Jenkinson queried whether the Group should submit a response to the HS2

consultation which was seeking views on seven proposed changes to the route,

including through South Yorkshire; the consultation closed on 9 March 2017.

It was noted that the SCR, the Chamber of Commerce and all Local Authorities

would be submitting responses.

It was decided that C Cocken would circulate the consultation document and any

related information and members of the Group could submit individual responses if

they wished and could mention they were a member of the Group.

C Cocken reported that she would circulate the Transport Strategy consultation to

the Group when available.

It was noted that Network Rail would be invited to the October meeting. It was

decided it would be helpful to submit questions beforehand to Network Rail; the

questions could be discussed at the July meeting of the Group.

C Cocken reminded the Group that the Barnsley Bus Partnership would commence

at the end of the month.

There had been lots of publicity including the distribution of leaflets and information

on buses, at interchanges and online.

J Whittington commented that the Partnership meant there were big changes

happening, especially in the Penistone area. But after listening to consultation

responses and holding meetings with officers, it was hoped that the best solution

had been found with the resources available.

7 OPERATOR UPDATES

There were no Operator updates that had not been covered elsewhere in the

meeting.

8 FORWARD PLANNER FOR 2017

The Group noted the Forward Planner.

The July meeting would focus on buses. C Cocken queried whether the Group

wished to focus on a particular area or receive a general update.

N Spetch felt there were several areas which could be considered, including:

 Extending the partnership concept;

 Ticketing;

 Co-ordination of services; and

 Replacement of vehicles.

M Turner informed the Group that the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of Mr

Paulley in the case of “prams v wheelchairs”.

The case began when Mr Paulley was left at a bus stop because a woman with a

pram refused to move out of the designated wheelchair area.

The Supreme Court ruled that drivers should request a non-wheelchair user to

vacate the space. If this was refused the driver should consider further steps to

pressurise the non-wheelchair user to vacate the space. It was noted that drivers

were not legally obliged to force someone to move.

9 DATE OF FUTURE MEETINGS

Future meeting dates were noted as:

 Wednesday 26 April –10am.

 Thursday 20 July – 10.30am.

 Wednesday 18 October – 10.30am.

M Turner commented that the Terms of Reference stated that “the Group will meet

four times a year on the third Tuesday of January, April, July and October”.

C Cocken replied that now SYPTE shared the building with the SCR Executive

Team the meeting room was less readily available; it was easier to book the room

at Rotherham Interchange, but access to this room was difficult.

The Group agreed to the sentence being removed from the Terms of Reference,

and requested that future meetings be on a consistent day, where possible, and be

aligned to the district meetings.

1