‘We are more vulnerable’

In his statement to councillors on 16 September 2014, leader Albert Bore said that Birmingham city council had not given enough attention to how it reduced its workforce. Central government cuts would mean a continuing reduction in employee numbers, and “we will have to explain to people that we’re sorry but we just don’t have the resources to do what they are asking”.

[Albert Bore]

Already our workforce has declined from just over 20,000 full time equivalents to around 13,000. By 2018 we estimate that numbers will have to fall to around 7,000. Our core workforce could be even smaller than that, because some of that 7,000 will be employed by arms-length organisations.

This means we will be operating with a workforce less than one third the size of that in 2010 and one half of what it is today – the equivalent of taking out twice the workforce that lost their jobs at MG Rover, Longbridge, in 2005.
[…]
In addition to the impact on our staff, there are four other key facts we want people to know.

Firstly the cuts are the result of the unfair distribution of austerity measures across public services. It has been estimated that over 50% of the cuts have fallen on local government and welfare benefits.

Secondly the government has distributed this cut unfairly between different parts of the country, with the most deprived areas receiving the biggest cuts.

This will mean a £147 per dwelling cut in Birmingham’s spending power next year, compared to the national average of just £45. Incredibly, some places such as Buckinghamshire, Windsor and Maidenhead, Hampshire and our old friend Wokingham will actually see an increase in spending power next year.

Thirdly, we are reliant on central government for 67% of our spending. The Council Tax provides for just 8%. So, when the cuts come, we are more vulnerable.

Finally, the cuts in funding combined with increased spending pressures mean we will have made cuts of over £800m by 2018 – equivalent to over 60% of the controllable budget. In the next year alone we must find around £200m, on top of the £460m already cut from our services.

Far from austerity being over, as some seem to believe, this is the biggest cut in mainstream funding we have seen so far. And the cuts are planned to continue for at least three more years.

So how accurate is this portrayal? According to the Guardian (1 December 2010) Birmingham city council planned to go from its 2010 staffing level of just under 19,000 FTE posts to just under 12,000, over a four year period. But ‘just under 3,000 backroom roles, mainly in education, would be moved to cooperative organisations that the council plans to create’. So ‘reduction in council headcount’, is not the same thing as ‘reduction in service headcount’.

All the same, overall council headcount has fallen, without obvious deterioration in service quality. Which would tend to suggest that productivity has been (and may still be) quite low.

Measuring Birmingham council productivity, and the fairness of its central government grant funding, is difficult because of the lack of transparency. Most people haven’t the foggiest idea how council tax is spent, how efficient their council is, or how the government allocates money between different councils. If Birmingham council really wanted to save money, the first steps would doubtless involve ‘addressing’ the Service Birmingham contract, and rationalising the waste management operation.

Don’t take corporateness for blandness or passive conformity

Birmingham city council chief executive Mark Rogers has written to staff, to update them on the financial challenge facing the authority.

[Birmingham city council]

Update on the financial challenge

Sep 18, 2014

Posted by Mark Rogers

Email sent to all staff

Colleagues,

I imagine you will have now read, or read about, the Leader’s statement to Full Council on Tuesday (16 September).

If not, you should do so: http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2014/09/update-the-financial-situation-facing-the-city-council/

It sets out for our residents, elected members and, of course, ourselves the trajectories for funding and staffing if the Government continues on its present austerity drive. In particular, it makes clear that the greatest impact of the cuts in our funding are about to come. You don’t need me to tell you this; but the Leader needed to make it clear so that everyone else also understood.

What the speech also does is make a very important, public commitment to tackling the implications for staff differently as we plan ahead. And it sets out clearly that we are about to reinvent local government in Birmingham.

You will know that, since arriving, I have been placing a strong focus on the importance of assessing our values and purpose, using the Big Conversations to get your views on what kind of council we need to be in the future if we are still to make a positive difference to people’s lives. We have also explored what kind of staff we will need for this challenging new future and what support and development the organisation will need to provide to ensure we can fulfil our commitments.

This first phase of work is reaching fruition and it is timely that the outcomes from our deliberations over the last three months will now directly inform the comprehensive human resources strategy that the Leader has asked be put together.

I am acutely aware of the pressures we are all under, heightened by the glare of publicity that Birmingham attracts because we are the second city, but also because we are so deeply affected by the disproportionately large cuts being required of us.

I know that some of you will think it strange, possibly even perverse, for us to spend time on the questions I have asked of you in the Big Conversations, but we must persist. Having a clear future focus is the only way to deal with austerity in a way that respects both the needs and expectations of the public and ourselves. More than ever, we need our collective moral compass to inform the hard decisions about what to do and what not to; who we can keep and who we have to lose. But if we have authentic values, a common sense of purpose, and fewer but wholly realistic priorities, then we will all know what we are aiming for. And in this way we retain our focus on the citizens whom we serve and ensure that what we can still do is of the highest quality and makes the greatest difference.

This way we will help each other with ensuring that we do not lose our morale. And, importantly, I am seeking to strengthen and improve the quality and consistency of the welfare and development support available to all staff as we navigate these most difficult of times. We have already launched the help employee assistance programme ( http://www.birmingham.helpeap.com ) but I want to go further to ensure that everyone can access the support they need. If you are feeling worried about your personal situation as a result of the announcement yesterday, I strongly urge you to talk to your line manager about your concerns.

Words are, of course, fine. What will matter is the action we take. Here is a note that I have sent to my immediate team on the back of the Leader’s statement, which starts to set out the tasks ahead. A timetable will be drawn up over the next few days that will plot the milestones that we need to reach.

And, as I always say, this is about all of us putting our shoulder to the wheel. I cannot change things on my own; I need you all to join in taking us into a new future. My primary responsibility is to lead by example.

Thank you,

Mark

==================================================================

Email sent to Corporate Leadership Team (CLT)

Colleagues

What follow are, for me, the small number of “mission critical” issues that either arise from, or are reflected in the Leader’s statement. I may be wrong; and you’ll tell me if I am. But this is how I see it.

We have, of course, been attending to these matters already – but they now have an added imperative behind them thanks to Sir Albert’s very clear and public recognition of their importance.

I will be “sense-checking” what follows with you over the next few days and, of course, there will be regular testing out with core wider CLT, all our staff – and, of course, the Leader (copied in) and Cabinet.

So …

1. Our Purpose

The coming days and weeks provide the opportunity and “the moment” to take the thinking coming from the Leader and Cabinet, the Listening Leadership sessions & the Big Conversations and articulate what this council is for – in doing so, setting out the core values that need to be in our DNA, the outcomes that we will prioritise because they are the ones that will make the most important differences to people’s lives and, without being unduly melodramatic or philosophical, the point of remaining “a going concern”. We must set this out clearly, ensuring the public, councillors, officers and our partners know what we mean by “the next era of local government” in Birmingham.

This is a big deal for us and, whilst it is almost inevitable that we will also have to take more into account as Sir Bob Kerslake’s review proceeds, we hold our destiny in our hands. We also owe it to our staff to be clear what the future will bring so that they can make informed decisions about whether or not they want to be a part of it notwithstanding that some of them won’t get a choice because of the way the axe is falling, reducing our capacity to deliver as much as we used to.

It is clearly neither my task alone to draft the proposals, nor to agree them unilaterally, but I will be leading personally on the work from the officer side of the equation. To this end, colleagues in HR&OD have already been asked to give me the raw material from the recent Big Conversation and Listening Leadership events so that I can now make a formal and structured start.

I intend to have something substantial to share with SDs, CLT, Wider CLT and, ultimately, the Leader and Cabinet/EMT by mid-October. I am also considering “Big Conversations: the sequel” as the means of engaging staff in this “forming” stage of defining purpose. I also intend to use BC2 as the platform for redesigning our PDR framework, starting with reaching early agreement on the design principles.

2. Our People

The Leader’s speech provides a necessary, if very challenging, acknowledgement that we need to improve how we manage the ongoing staff reductions we are likely faced with. Again, we are moving forward with our thinking, with colleagues already having put serious time into addressing the questions of: our shared values; our corporate behaviours; re-balancing the staffing profile (primarily focusing on age, but still keeping a keen eye on all aspects of diversity in the workforce); and further simplifying the organisational hierarchy (a promise, not a threat).

But we are not yet in a sufficiently well-developed position to describe how we will downsize whilst still appropriately retaining and, where necessary, retraining the right staff to increase significantly the likelihood that we have the values, behaviours and capabilities to enable us to fulfil our future purpose and modus operandi – and ensure we are valued and respected by the communities whom we serve, as well as by the council itself.

Henceforth, we need to formulate quickly an approach to staff reduction that treats people fairly. Not easy, but ground-breaking if we get it right. I expect HR&OD colleagues to be pulling this together in the next couple of weeks, in parallel with the work I’ve said I’ll lead on formulation of purpose.

3. Our Pathways

Work has started on sketching out a revamped “employee journey”. The Big Conversations are informing this activity and, again, in October it will be possible to set out phase one, the backbone, of the renewed offer to staff. It is being designed with a view to expressing the “asks” and “offers” of and to a Birmingham City Council employee – from the Chief Executive outwards.

Some of the likely early “asks” and “offers” include: shifting the emphasis of PDR from a six monthly, too often mechanistic, MOT of behaviour and performance, to a continuous leadership and management conversation that supports and challenges both elements continuously (with a particular emphasis on behaviours, but not going soft on delivering better outcomes for citizens as set out in a reformed Council Plan – see below); 360 evaluation will be reintroduced, starting with the most senior officers, as a signal to the wider organisation that we’re all in this together and that no one is exempt from feedback about their leadership and leadership style; a renewed focus on, and commitment to pastoral care – best summed up as an aspiration to make tough decisions firmly, fairly and, crucially, compassionately.

4. Our Corporate Business Change Approach

I have pulled this out as a distinct focus, but the agreement to, and rolling out of, a corporate approach to delivering the changes that our priorities and reduced budget require will lie at the heart of the employee offer.

We need now to make some quick decisions about the way we are going to bring about our new ways of working and you all know that I am an advocate of lean systems thinking. This is because at its heart is the principle of adding value to the customer (rather than the more usual and misleading view that it is simply a business process re-engineering methodology designed for the motor industry). We will now conduct a short, sharp debate about the way forward – and then just get on with bringing it in – preferably within weeks rather than months.

I will also align all the remaining transformation resources (human and financial) to supporting the implementation of our chosen way forward and we will move, no later than the start of the 2015/16 financial year, from the vagaries of bidding to a resource allocation method that is driven by a strategic overview of where “transformation” investment is most needed. But this should not imply that we are taking a “change on tour” approach; everyone will need to become versed and competent in our chosen methodology and take responsibility for everyday implementation. Much more anon.

All these things set out above will drive the ongoing formulation of the comprehensive HR strategy that the Leader’s speech signalled and which I have already been driving since arrival. It is positive that we are well on the way – “Forward the Birmingham Way” as some are starting to call it.

5. Our Priorities & The Budget

The desperately difficult process of aligning our rapidly, and unfairly, diminishing resources to our priorities is continuing and is entering the most difficult phase – shaping up the overall approach (a Green Paper next month) and then formal, detailed proposals for public consultation (December).

We still have much work to do and, as a team, we will need to support (and challenge) the ongoing process, ensuring we operate with a “one council” mindset. I’m deadly serious about this. We cannot tolerate either silo-thinking or protectionism: they will defeat our endeavours and leave us with weaker prospects.

A key aspect of how we operate differently in the future will be the emphasis we place on the localism and devolution agenda. Not just the governance side of enabling more services to be defined and delivered at a neighbourhood level, but the concerted effort needed to make #SU4BRUM a widespread reality. I know that this is not a council programme as such, but what the campaign represents needs to be part of the role for all officers, charging them with the clear responsibility of enabling communities (of interest and geography) to lead for themselves on issues that matter to them. We don’t yet have a strategic approach to this; but it will become part of everyone’s job description – not simply because we can’t do all the things that we used; but also because it’s the right thing to do, pushing power and responsibility away from the centre.

Finally (for now), I am determined that we re-establish a clear golden thread from the Leader’s Policy Statement through to a simple Council Plan, emulating the best practice of those who have mastered a plan-on-a-page. There is not yet enough clarity for far too many staff – me included – about what the small number of priorities and desired outcomes are that we must all focus upon. But the Leader’s Statement to council gives us a crucial opportunity to reflect in the next Council Plan the unequivocally clear message that fewer staff mean fewer priorities, fewer services and fewer initiatives. Of course, what comes with this is an unwavering focus on great customer service, top-drawer service quality and best-in-class performance in all that we continue to do – all of which will feature strongly in the reconstituted approach to performance management.

6. Communications

You will know by now that I believe strongly in our responsibility as managers to continuously communicate and engage effectively with staff. This will only increase in importance as we drive a reform agenda through the business, and I expect that we will all have our own directorate-level ongoing big conversations – how we’re moving the organisation forward should be a standing item delivered through our collective and distributed leadership obligations.

And we also need to take stock of our outward looking communications. We need to tell our story of change, challenge and achievements in a more strategic and proactive way than has previously been necessary. We are a city under the spotlight and, without seeking to gild lilies (which we can’t afford anyway; gilt is too expensive), we owe it to our citizens and ourselves to give a balanced account of where we are now, where we are heading, how we are going to get there and how well we are doing.

7. A New Corporateness

All this above amounts to a new age of corporateness. I am, at heart, a collaborator (in the good sense of the word). I believe that our strength lies in strong values, clear purpose and pooled effort. So, I’m taking the opportunity to re-state that “being corporate” is not an option – nor is it a dirty word.

We need to play nicely together or not play at all – Solitaire will not be acceptable at BCC.

But don’t take corporateness for blandness or passive conformity. I want to remind us of the deadly sin of “confirmation bias”. We need to be a team that questions constructively and brings forward positive alternatives to ensure that we don’t fall into the easy decision-making trap of giving priority to those views/data that support our default way of thinking and doing things. I will expect constructive challenge at all times – sometime I’ll tell you the Van Halen story but, for now, be assured that being corporate means we hunt as a pack, but a pack that argues the toss over the hunting strategy.

So …

The road will be long and hard. But one thing I guarantee. I’ll support you all the way if you’re signed up.

Thanks

Mark

Mimic Transport for London, and get lower bus fares

Millions of bus passengers outside London are getting overcharged as local authorities do not have the necessary powers to control fares, the Institute of Public Policy Research has warned in its report “Greasing the Wheels” (Mark Rowney and Will Straw, August 2014).

[“Bus fares soar due to ‘lack of local powers’, Dom Browne, Transport Network, 26 August 2014]

Fares in England outside the capital have increased at least a third more than inflation in the past two decades […] This has hit many of the country’s poorest the hardest as they rely on buses the most.

Outside London fares increased by 35% above inflation between 1995 and 2013, by 34% in Wales and 20% in Scotland, with a lack of local competition also preventing prices being held in check.

In response IPPR has called on the Government to give greater powers and responsibilities to local bodies to shape local bus markets replicating the Transport for London (TfL) model at the city-region and combined authority level.

So, if other areas had TfL-style authorities and subsidies, their citizens could enjoy the lower bus fare increases of the capital.

Unfortunately, the evidence from the Office of National Statistics and Department for Transport suggests that

• in London, fare increases in recent years have not been much different from other English metropolitan areas;
• fare increases in shire counties were substantially lower than in metropolitan areas.

Bus fare increases in and outside London

In other words, areas without passenger transport authorities had the lowest fare increases — the opposite of the impression given by the IPPR.

This does not mean that there is no useful role for municipal involvement in local transport. But it does mean that things are way more complicated than Mr Rowney and Mr Straw would suggest.

Rockets under mayors

The government should put ‘rocket boosters’ under the idea of directly elected Mayors to ensure that all parts of the country are in a position to benefit from UK’s world class technology sector, according to thinktank Policy Exchange (14 August 2014).

Our report says that Britain is already benefitting from the growth of technology firms with 1.2 million people employed in the sector. The technology sector also received more equity investment than any other sector over the past three years. However, the fruits of this success are predominantly being felt in and around London and the South East.
[…]
The report argues that ‘clusters’ – geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field – are the most effective way of boosting the technology sector across the country. It highlights a number of challenges facing northern towns and cities:

A ‘brain drain’ from the North. Over a third of graduates from major universities leave the North East (37%) and North West (36%) while as many as 55% leave Yorkshire and the Humber. For STEM subjects, the figures are 35%,34% and 52% respectively. Those from the top ranked universities leave in higher numbers.

A lack of local leadership. As many as 37 local authorities are covered by more than one Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), creating a mismatch between the geography over which LEPs have responsibility and the business communities on the ground.

Access to finance. A study by the UK Business Angel Association found that businesses in London and the South East attracted 54% of angel funding in 2012/13. At a venture capital level, the two regions also dominated, receiving 58% of total UK investment.

Transport links. The average speed of journeys from Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield to London is 77.6mph, compared with an average speed between those northern cities of just 46mph. Slow journeys make it harder for people to move between clusters to access and share work, ideas and opportunities and is a major barrier for foreign and London based investors.

The report makes a series of recommendations to boost the growth of technology clusters in the North, including:

Reviving the idea of directly elected Mayors with appropriately devolved powers to lead economic growth in their areas including the development of tech clusters.

Investing in rail and road infrastructure to better connect northern towns and cities. High Speed 3 should be carefully considered but policymakers should also be aware that travel between towns and cities is extremely slow.

Encouraging universities to let students retain the intellectual property of products or services they create while studying. Stronger bonds between the university and graduate may help retain more top quality entrepreneurs in the local area.

What exactly has a directly elected mayor got to do with ‘world class technology sectors’? Is “the technology sector”, whatever that is, implanted in the South East because London has a directly elected mayor? Liverpool has a directly elected mayor. So where is Silicon Mersey Valley?

The average speed of journeys from Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield to London “is 77.6 mph”. How does that work? Does that mean everyone driving down the motorway is breaking the speed limit?

Borismaster battles

London’s fleet of 600 Borismaster buses will cost £213 million, reported Bus and Coach.

07 May 2013

Tfl: Borismasters “will save millions”

Transport for London has confirmed the average price of each bus will be £354,500 over the four-year procurement contract and says that “millions of pounds will be saved over the life of the vehicles”. […]

And, making a virtue of the fact that the vehicles are unacceptable for operation anywhere else in the UK, TfL says that it “fully intends that these new buses will operate for their entire working life – of at least 14 years – in the capital – which means that a multi-million pound saving will be delivered over the useful life of the buses, even taking into account the marginally higher initial cost of the buses”.
[…]
No mention is made of the added cost of employing conductors, a point picked up be Green Party London assembly member Darren Johnson who says: “The New Bus for London is an expensive vanity project which the next mayor will abandon as an outdated and polluting waste of money. Londoners simply can’t afford the higher fares that will come from paying £37 million a year to bus assistants whose only real job is to stop people falling off the rear platform when it is open. The reason why these buses will spend their entire life in London is because no one else wants them. That is also the reason why TfL have had to buy the buses themselves, at a premium rate, rather than let the operators have all the upfront costs and risks.”

Alongside the 600 Borismasters London will also be taking 600 conventional – and presumably less expensive – hybrids over the next three years. […]

Are the Borismasters good value for money, or not? As things stand, it’s impossible to tell. Certainly, the ‘fact that the vehicles are unacceptable for operation anywhere else’ would apply to lots of other public transport equipment — e.g., the Victoria Line rolling stock. In a free unsubsidised market, bus operators would likely not even buy ‘conventional’ hybrid buses, hence the existence of the Green Bus Fund.

Many of the opponents of having ‘bus assistants whose only real job is to stop people falling off the rear platform when it is open’ are in favour of having rail ticket office clerks sitting in huts twiddling their thumbs for 56 minutes of every hour. So, quite baffling, as usual.

Is opacity sustainable?

On its website, Sustainability West Midlands (SWM) states that it is the sustainability adviser for the leaders of the West Midlands, and a not-for profit company that works with its members who are leading individuals and organisations in the business, public, and voluntary sectors.

Its vision “is of businesses and communities thriving in a future region that is environmentally sustainable and socially just”.

History

Establishing a public sector partnership approach 2002-4
========================================================

SWM was established as not-for-profit company limited by guarantee by a range of regional public sector bodies in 2002. Its purpose was to provide a ‘regional sustainable development roundtable’ which gave sustainability advice for the region.

SWM was chaired by the Environment Agency and employed a staff member who built the organisation into a partnership organisation consisting of a Board and twenty members representing different economic, regional and social sectors in the region, mostly from the public sector. Funding was provided from a range of public sector partners.

SWM was recognised as providing the West Midlands Regional Assembly with a partnership for sustainability, which included advice on policy issues such as housing and planning and producing the Regional Sustainable Development Framework.

Growing a private sector network and project approach 2004-8
============================================================

SWM appointed its first Chair from the private sector and employed a new part-time Director to develop the organisation. This included growing the business representation of the Board and members, and expanding the membership to around eighty. Funding was provided from a range of public and private sector sources around projects.

In 2006 SWM was recognised by the Government as an ‘independent sustainability champion body’ for the region fulfilling all the criteria of the Sustainable Development Commission, one of only two regions to do so.

In 2008 SWM was recognised by Advantage West Midlands as a strategic body for regional support and is designated as the strategic lead for overseeing and reporting on the regions progress around sustainability good practice under the ‘sustainable living’ objective and activities within the Regional Economic Strategy.

Becoming a catalyst for change – 2009 to date
=============================================

SWM appoints its first full time Executive Director and after consultation with stakeholders refines its offer as a strategic sustainability adviser for the leaders of the region, with a new vision, products and services. SWM moves into its new offices and meeting room facilities, hosted by RegenWM, at Millennium Point, Birmingham.

The Board and a growing membership are now from the private, public and third sector. Funding is from the public sector to provide core services and build the support required to help the region. Other funding is from the public and private sector for projects. Interventions are increasingly strategically targeted for maximum long-term impact. Closer collaborative working is being established with other key partners.

However, very little information is available on the governance, policy and effectiveness of SWM, or the advice it has given to private and public sector bodies.

This year’s winner

Coalition DCLG minister Eric Pickles’ December 2012 guidance to local government on ways to save money included cancelling “away days in posh hotels and glitzy award ceremonies”.

There is a whole Awards ‘n Awaydays industry feeding off local government (and the wider public sector, including the NHS). But needless to say, coalition ministers are not unknown to attend such junkets, in one capacity or another.

Transport Times Events is part of the fake awards ecosystem financed by public funds.

West Midlands transport authority Centro nominated itself for six awards at the Transport Times ‘National Transport Awards’ 2011. Its press release said it had ‘picked up nominations in half a dozen categories’.

Centro press release
Mon 22/08/2011

Centro nominated for six awards at transport ‘Oscars’

Centro will be hoping to hit the opposition for six at this year’s National Transport Awards, after picking up nominations in half a dozen categories.

The region’s transport authority will be vying for six accolades at the Awards, regarded as the transport industry’s ‘Oscars’, to be held in London in October.

The event at London’s Lancaster Hotel will see Centro hoping to scoop the awards for:

Travel Information and Marketing
The Joe Clarke Passenger Transport Authority of the Year
Excellence in Technology
Improvements to Bus Services
Most Innovative Transport Project
Contribution to Sustainable Transport

Complete and utter blight

On 16 January 2008 the Liverpool Daily Post reported on the city’s failed Merseytram light rail project, which had seen the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority wasting £70,000,000 of taxpayers’ money without a single piece of track being laid.

In June 2012, years after the government refused to pay £170 million towards it, Merseytram line one was still blighting Liverpool, according to Daily Post contributor Tony McDonough.

As part of the plan for line one of Merseytram, Mersytravel issued compulsory purchase orders in 2005 for more than 1.6 million square feet [148,000 m²] of property between the city centre and Kirkby.

And despite the failure to win funding, the authority served the notices again in 2010.

The CPOs don’t expire until February next year but it seems Mersytravel wants to continue to keeps its options open rather than lifting the orders straight away.

One property developer, Jon Elster, claims the CPOs hanging over properties that he owns in London Road in the city centre are hindering their development.

He says the threat of the CPOs has meant deals for a budget hotel and a restaurant have collapsed.

Former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey says the CPOs mean the properties affected are “blighted”. He is calling on Merseytravel to finally admit defeat on Merseytram.

“It is time to end this now,” he said.

Transport and empowered communities

Labour party policy is to build HS2: how does that empower communities like the Regents Park Estate?

On 14 June, the Labour party launched its policy review on Empowering Communities to Improve Transport.

Passengers could benefit from improvements to the quality and affordability of local transport if communities were given greater control over how services are delivered, according to findings from Labour’s Policy Review.

Passengers might benefit from “improvements to the quality and affordability of local transport if communities were given greater control”. Or there again, they might not. The quality of local transport is ultimately dependent of what share of the funding cake it gets. And local communities are not necessarily represented by local transport authorities.

Forty years after it was established, Centro has still not made stations like Stechford accessible

In Birmingham, local transport authority Centro has decided to prioritise vanity over local infrastructure. As well as backing the HS2 railway itself, the largest single item of expenditure planned by Centro is a £500 million tramway from central Birmingham to Bickenhill HS2 station.

Labour’s transport team has been looking at the experience of countries including the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, where local and regional transport authorities have significantly greater powers and control over funding, enabling them to plan and integrate services.

Labour’s Policy Review is looking at what lessons could be learnt for the transport system across England and specifically how other parts of the country could improve public transport if they had ‘London-style’ powers over local and regional bus, tram and rail services including the ability to set fares, protect services, integrate timetables and introduce ‘Oyster-style’ smart multi-modal multi-operator ticketing.

Certainly, deregulated structures established in the 1980s are inappropriate for metropolitan areas like the West Midlands. But the failure to introduce ‘Oyster-style’ ticketing outside of London has little to do with deregulation; multi-modal ticketing has existed since the mid 1970s. Passenger transport authorities have not had the skills needed to implement smart ticketing, usable real time information, and suchlike.

Real time bus information in the West Midlands does not work properly

Ideas emerging from this work include strengthening the powers of the existing Integrated Transport Authorities while encouraging and incentivising other city regions to look at the benefits from developing similar models of governance; supporting transport authorities that wish to use the legal powers introduced by Labour to re-regulate bus services by giving the Secretary of State a new power to specify an area as a Deregulation Exemption Zone; and bringing all the various strands of bus funding together into a single pot, devolved to transport authorities.

Local transport authorities are short of expertise and ideas in ticketing, timetabling, system optimisation, strategic planning, and environmental management. Harbouring concerns about their competence, the last Labour government removed the co-signatory status of passenger transport authorities in local rail franchise agreements, and between 1997 and 2010, there was no attempt to re-regulate any bus network outside London.

Labour is also looking at increasing accountability over regional transport by enabling transport authorities to forge regional partnerships to take on responsibility for rail services and funding for major transport schemes (as an alternative to the Government’s proposals to hand over this funding and responsibility to LEPs); and enabling the review of the Highways Agency to explore the potential for devolving more of the road network and relevant funding to the regions.

Maria Eagle MP, Labour’s Shadow Transport Secretary, said:
[…] It’s time that fares and services were agreed not with profits but with passengers in mind. A real commitment to devolving powers and funding over transport will require a cultural change away from the ‘Whitehall knows best’ approach. It will mean being willing to take on the vested interests in the private train and bus companies that benefit from the current system.

Currently, neither local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) nor local authorities are well placed to take additional powers in the local transport sector. There are competence, transparency, and governance issues which have not been addressed. For example, if powers had been devolved to Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority, it’s likely that congestion charging would have been imposed, even though the majority of the community in all ten boroughs did not want it.

Similarly, if a LEP-led transport board were created in Birmingham, it would be unlikely to be much interested in bringing in 20mph speed limits on residential roads, no matter how many communities wanted it.

Bikes and metropolitan public transport

Although local authorities in Britain purport to encourage travel by bicycle, cyclists and would-be cyclists continue to be marginalised in town planning and transport policy. In Birmingham, the level of municipal antipathy was such that it took three years to install a single ‘Cyclists crossing’ road sign. (Earlier this month, control of the council changed hands.)

Bicycle-enabled public transport can offer advantages to travellers (including motorists) and wider society, so it’s disappointing that aspiration, policy, and action are so badly attuned. In the West Midlands, millions of pounds have been spent on park and ride by transport authority Centro, but almost nothing on bicycle-enabled transit.

Outside of London, Britain’s local public transport is dominated by buses, on which the facility to transport bikes is effectively non-existent. Some cities in the United States allow pushbikes to be transported on local buses, generally by means of a rack mounted externally on the vehicle front. For various reasons, this arrangement is not well suited to the British environment. However, enablement of combined bicycle-and-public-transport journeys should be a priority in urban planning. For city neighbourhoods not served by rail transit, consideration should be given to using large capacity buses, similar to TfL’s New Bus for London, to allow 1 – 2 bikes to be taken onboard.

Objections to carrying bikes on transit are usually about capacity or safety. Even nominally ‘high capacity’ rail transit systems can have total or near-total prohibition of cycle carriage. Sometimes, folding bikes are allowed, but these are less affordable for many people.

On Manchester’s Metrolink tramway, concern about bikes becoming projectiles in an accident led to transport authority GMITA (now TfGM) turning down requests for onboard cycle carriage. And in the West Midlands, Centro has stated that new supposedly ‘high capacity’ CAF trams will not be carrying bikes.

Conversion of railway to tramway has actually reduced green transport options, as can be seen with Metrolink in Oldham. In future British urban rail systems, the facility to carry accompanied bicycles should be designed-in (as with wheelchairs and pushchairs).

Many prospective mixed journeys only require bicycle use at one end, and for these, cycle stowage at the transit boarding point should be ideal. However, where bicycle parking has been provided, it has tended not to be very good. The ‘facility’ at Stechford railway station is an example. It consists of two Sheffield stands, in the open air, at the foot of a flight of steps, insecurely si(gh)ted, with no closed circuit tv coverage. Why public authorities choose to have infrastructure designed by non-cycling non-public-transport users, is unfathomable.