Agenda item

Transport Policy

It was moved by Councillor Ian Auckland, seconded by Councillor Katie Condliffe, that this Council:-

(a)       believes Sheffield needs a “pro-choice” transport policy, which helps and supports all modes of transport;

(b)       recalls the 2009 consultation on Penistone Road, in which increasing the speed limit was highlighted as the second most important issue by respondents;

(c)        welcomes that Government funding is available to undertake works on Penistone Road and notes Council reports that state increasing the speed limit would reduce journey times and improve air quality in the area;

(d)       regrets, therefore, that the intervention of anti-car Labour Councillors has seen the proposal to increase the speed limit to 40 mph dropped;

(e)       believes this latest decision follows a number of anti-car blunders by Labour Administrations in Sheffield, including:

(i)         dangerous bus-stop build-outs in Dore and Bents Green that have infuriated local residents and businesses;

(ii)        hikes in parking charges and parking permit fees that have hit local motorists; and

(iii)       disastrous bus-gate experiments at Meadowhead and Hillsborough;

(f)        notes with further concern that the Motorists’ Forum has been abolished and support withdrawn from Sheffield on the Move and believes that this sends a dangerous message about the Council’s regard for local motorists;

(g)       contrasts this with the action of the Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP and Liberal Democrats in Government who have helped secure £1.2 billion of investment for Sheffield to rejuvenate the city’s road network; and

(h)       calls upon the Administration to review its transport policy and bring a report to Cabinet within the next three months to outline how it will support all road users.

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Leigh Bramall, seconded by Councillor Chris Rosling-Josephs, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of paragraphs (b) to (h) and the addition of new paragraphs (b) to (i) as follows:-

(b)       confirms that the present Administration were supportive in principle of increasing the speed limit on Penistone Road, however, regrets that the costs of this scheme have spiralled from the original estimates due to Coalition Government red tape;

(c)        confirms that this move would only save between 20 and 30 seconds per journey at a cost of £500,000, therefore a cost of up to £25,000 per second saved;

(d)       regrets that at a time when the Government has drastically cut Sheffield’s funding for transport schemes and completing this work would mean taking money from other schemes, a £500,000 cost is too expensive to save between 20 and 30 seconds per journey;

(e)       is committed to listening to the voices of Sheffield motorists which is why it was a Labour administration that set up the Motorist Forum in the first place;

(f)        regrets that continuing Government cuts mean the Council has to find ways to make reductions that have the least impact on our services and merging the Motorists Forum with Sheffield on the Move means that both groups still have the opportunity to be heard;

(g)       welcomes the work the present Administration are undertaking to transform the city’s road network through the Streets Ahead programme; and

(h)       regrets that the main opposition group continue to snipe from the sidelines, however, fail to set out a positive agenda of how they would support motorists.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

It was then moved by Councillor Jillian Creasy, seconded by Councillor Robert Murphy, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words therefor:-

(a)       believes Sheffield needs a transport policy which follows a hierarchy of sustainable modes of transport with walking, disabled access, cycling and public transport at the top and private motorised vehicles near the bottom;

(b)       recalls that in the 2009 consultation on the Penistone Road Smart Route (which did not propose increasing the speed limit) the majority of respondents, whether car drivers, bus users or cyclists, supported the proposals and that their commonest reasons for doing so were to improve congestion and bus routes;

(c)        welcomes that Government funding is available for improvements on Penistone Road but regrets that the information about journey times and air quality in the Council report was not based on the actual recommendations with regard to speed limits and did not take into account the latest evidence about the effects of deceleration and acceleration on emissions or the virtuous circle of safer roads leading to more use of sustainable modes of transport, less congestion and faster overall journey times;

(d)       praises, therefore, the critical analysis provided by objectors and the eventual decision by the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development to drop the proposal to increase the speed limit to 40mph;

(e)       believes, however, that this decision was in contrast to a number of backward steps by the current Administration with regard to sustainable transport, including:

(i)         removing pedestrian crossings along Penistone Road between a key bus stop and Hillsborough College;

(ii)        cutting the Streets Ahead Cycle Opportunities fund in half in the previous financial year;

(iii)       removing cycle lanes on Pitsmoor Road so that motor traffic can use it in both directions; and

(iv)       reducing public transport concessions for disabled and elderly people;

(f)        notes that the Motorists Forum has been abolished and that support for Sheffield on the Move has been reduced, but that the Cycle Forum continues to do excellent work in promoting sustainable transport;

(g)       notes that Streetsahead is a like for like replacement and maintenance programme with minimal resources for improvements to layout, markings and signage and is therefore a massive lost opportunity; and

(h)       calls upon the Administration to use all existing forums and planning decisions to work with the public to develop and implement sustainable transport policies which protect and benefit the city as a whole.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-