1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
Some in, some out in new PTA plans
Page 28
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• With the Transport Act now law, Mr. Richard Marsh, Minister of Transport, will be making Orders setting up Passenger Transport Authorities in four areas—West Midlands, Merseyside, Tyneside and South-East Lancashire/North East Cheshire (SELNEC). He is now formally consulting the local authorities in these areas and has sent them proposals for the composition of the Passenger Transport Areas and the membership of the Authorities.
These proposals modify those circulated informally in July (CM July 12 and 19) in the light of the views expressed by councils and other bodies consulted.
The main criterion, says an MoT notice, for settling which local authority areas should be proposed for inclusion in the PTAs has been the "travel-to-work" information provided by the 196.8-census, Where the census suggests that a substantial proportion of workers living in an area travel to jobs in the conurbation that area has been included. Account has also been taken of the pattern of services provided by the various transport operators, particularly the municipal undertakings, since they will form the basis 0 the PTAs' operations.
Where there have been differences of opinion about inclusion of a council's area or part of an area, the Minister has in most cases decided to exclude the area concerned on the grounds that it will be easier to extend a PTA area later than to contract it.
West Midlands PTA In earlier consultations, two PTAs for the West Midlands—one based on Birmingham and Solihull, the other on Dudley, Walsall, Warley, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton —were suggested. The Minister has been unable to accept this, pointing out that a PTA should be reasonably self-contained for the planning of transport and should cover most of the daily passenger movements in the locality. There are some 80,000 journeys to work each day between the Black Country and the Birmingham-Solihull area and many more for other purposes. "It would be the negation of proper transport planning to draw a boundary across this heavy volume of traffic", says the Ministry's letter,
In order to permit more direct participation of county Districts in the work of the Authority, the Minister proposes to provide for three more appointments from those districts. To balance this, one more seat is proposed for Birmingham and two more to be shared collectively between Dudley, Walsall, Warley, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton.
The following areas which were not included in the PTA in the July proposals are now included: Redditch UD: parishes of Kniver and Pattingham in Seisdon RD: parishes of Bentley Pa uncefoot and Dodford-with-Grafton in Bromsgrove RD; parishes of Curdworth, Hampton-in-Arden, Lea Marston, Nether Whitacre, Shustoke and Wishaw in Meriden RD.
Tyneside PTA
One major conflict of view was whether Wearside should be integrated with Tyneside in the Tyneside Area. The "travel-to-work" figures support the view that Wearside is a separate urban area, and as there are no physical links between the municipal undertakings on Tyneside and Wearside, the Minister proposes not to include Sunderland in the PTA. Nor are Boldon and Washington New Town included, since the census showed that about the same numbers of people travel to work on Wearside as on Tyneside.
There have also been divided opinions as to whether the Tyneside PTA should remain fairly compact or be extended to include such traffic sources as Hexham and Morpeth. The Minister has decided against their inclusion, particularly as they do not send many commuters into the conurbation.
Five seats are now proposed for Newcastle. Gateshead, South Shields and Tynemouth share two additional members between them, so that these three boroughs will have five members in all.
The following areas which were included in the PTA in the July proposals are now excluded: Prudhoe UD; Washington UD; Chester-le-Street RD parishes of Lamesley, Birtley and Ouston.
Merseyside PTA
On Merseyside, there has been a wide measure of acceptance for the July proposals. Some of the local authorities on North Merseyside would have preferred a bigger Area, taking in all the local electric rail services and the Merseyside New Towns; but the travel information does not support this.
A separate PTA for the Wirral peninsula was suggested. But as some 40,000 commuters travel daily to work across the Mersey. the Minister considers that this would frustrate the organization of a properly integrated public transport system. He therefore proposes a single PTA covering both banks of the river and incorporating the cross-river services.
The only change from the July proposals is the addition of the Urban District of Neston, from which many residents travel to work into the conurbation. Ellesmere Port has not been included.
The change proposed would increase the Cheshire County District population included in the area by 16.000. The Minister has proposed five instead of four appointments by county districts to the Authority, with the Lancashire rural districts retaining one appointment and the other four distributed in whatever way the local authorities concerned wish.
The Neston UD area which was not included in the July proposals is now included.
Selnec PTA
The Area which the Minister proposes to designate as the South-East Lancashire/ North-East Cheshire (SELNEC) PTA is largely that described in the July proposals, omitting New Mills Urban District. On balance, he has decided that Leigh Borough and Ramsbottom Urban District should be included, since otherwise the reorganization fo public transport and the rationalization of bus operations were likely to be frustrated.
The Minister considers that the road and rail links between the High Peak and the conurbation can be maintained and improved without bringing the district into the PTA. So he has concluded that the High Peak should not be added. Glossop Borough, however, sends a substantial proportion of its working population into the conurbation and should be included.
Representations were made that there were too many county districts for only seven members to give them adequate opportunity to identify themselves with the Authority. The Minister, therefore, proposes to increase their representation to nine.
Comments
The Minister has now requested the comments of local authorities on the new proposals by the end of the year.