Details of a draft report on the future of the Lendal Bridge traffic restrictions, which was written before the scheme was abandoned, reveal that Labour had intended to continue with the restrictions.

The report was substantially rewritten when it became clear that the Council had been acting unlawfully in fining over 50,000 motorists who had travelled over the bridge during restricted hours. To make that decision, the Council used an arcane interpretation of its own constitution claiming that the Council Leader “could take any decision which would normally be taken by the Cabinet“.

It is clear from the report that key background information was still not available when the Leader took his decision on 8th April.

Although draft reports are often re-written to improve clarity before they are published, there are some glaring differences and omissions from the report being considered by the Cabinet later today (Tuesday).

Reinvigorate York

The original draft claimed that

“de-trafficking of Lendal Bridge and environs also allows buses to be removed from Exhibition Square and makes it easier to deliver the Reinvigorate York scheme there”. In arguing in favour of the restrictions being made permanent the draft report goes on to say,”

The Reinvigorate York schemes proposed for Exhibition Square and Duncombe Place would be limited in scope, reducing the ability to make significant enhancements to the public realm or attract additional footfall to the city centre. Other transport aspirations could also be curtailed, in particular options for, and the operation of, a public transport interchange at the station and the ability to provide journey time and reliability improvements for public transport”.

The final report fails to mention any dependence the “reinvigorate” programme might have on the Lendal Bridge scheme.

Congestion

The final report plays down the effect that the closure has had on traffic congestion.

The original draft admitted, “During the Lendal Bridge trial additional delay and congestion has been experienced at the Water End junction. Analysis of the TrafficMaster data has identified that during the 4pm – 5pm period some journeys can experience significant extra delay”.

The draft implies criticism of the timing of the trial saying that the A59 road works had made congestion worse. The premature timing of the trail was a criticism made by many residents a year ago.

The draft report in admitting major congestion issues at Water End suggests changes to traffic signals at Salisbury Terrace. “Longer term measures are being investigated should the completion of the A59/A1237 road works not resolve the traffic issues in this location. (Cabinet Member briefing note is available and with alteration could be provided as an annex)”.

No annex was provided in the final report.

Visitor Numbers

The draft report said, “Since 2010 there has been a downward trend in footfall in the city centre, approximately 11% reduction in annual total 2010-2013 (as measured in Parliament St)”. The report was annotated to say “What is happening nationally? City centre/out of town?”

No such information is provided in the final report

Also omitted from the final report, but included in the draft, was the comment

“For most of the trial the number of PCNs being issued has remained at a relatively constant level, rather than reduce and plateau as predicted”

Costs

One of the most telling sections of the draft report (and not included in the public version) was an analysis of the increased costs that the trial had accumulated during its 7 month period of operation.

“Since commencing enforcement on 4th September approximately 48, 525 PCNs have been issued. Assuming that all PCNs are paid (subject to appeal) within 14 days then a net total income of approximately Exxk has been generated.

There remains the risk of challenge through the tribunal process if the adjudicator finds that the Council has misinterpreted the law and illegally charged drivers. This risk is small. It would be a Council decision if it decided to agree with driver complaints or any adjudicator findings about, for example, signage being inadequate and decided (as Colchester has recently undertaken) to repay charges. The processing cost (to ICES) to the end of November was £199k (update). The loss in income to the end of December would be approx £844k. (update)

This is an estimate because some of this income may already have been refunded. There would also be a significant amount of officer time within network management, creditors and finance which hasn’t been quantified. If a refund by cheque was made there would be a £5 fee per cheque. The number of PCNs to end of February was approx 48,500, therefore potentially a Exxk administration fee. (Should this paragraph go in? When will we get the Adjudicator letter?)

A number of costs have been incurred as part of the delivery of the trial. Capital costs including cameras, signs, electric and fibre connections and surveys and monitoring are approximately £138k (update). This includes additional costs not included in the original budget for items such as early receipt of TrafficMaster data, additional traffic surveys required to consider complaints and comments, additional signing (AA) and replacement regulatory signs to increase conspicuity).

Revenue costs are currently approximately E125k (update) including project management, Network staff and advertising. This includes costs for additional items of advertising and police support in the early stages of the trial, not originally included within the budget”.

Where the fine income would have been spent

It emerges that the Council already had a “shopping list” of ways that it would spend the £2 million (including Coppergate) in fines income that it expected to receive.

“The additional funding can be found from the PCN income and under section 36(a) of the Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations2005 is a legitimate use of the income generated. Support forth trial is the first use of the income ahead of other schemes that could be developed. There are a number of schemes/proposals for which the PCN income could be used for delivery. These schemes are set out in the table”

The scheme favoured by Council officials was a “City Centre shuttle bus” and a bus loop to Derwenthorpe. It would be alarming if First hadn’t factored the needs of the prestigious Derwenthorpe development into their business plans so why a Council subsidy is required is anyone’s guess.

Local elections

The final telling comment comes in the last section of the draft report where the value of continuing the trial (albeit with an earlier finish time of 4:00pm)is discussed.

It removes the risks in option 3a (continuing with the present timings) but adds another in that the end of the six months would be close to local elections (!)

NB. A Freedom of Information request asking about the number of FPNs issued between 28^th February and 12^th April is due to be answered later this week