The Transportation Advisory Group noted the questions and answers on transport matters, that had been submitted in advance of the meeting and had been included in the agenda pack.
• In response to the question submitted by Councillor Bacon and answer received, the Chair advised that this question had been raised on several occasions before, the X5 bus service was the main bus that serviced the South and South-West side of the Borough, however demand from Todwick was too low to justify the service.
• In response to the question submitted by Councillor Griffin and answer received, Councillor Griffin asked whether there had been an Equality Impact Assessment completed to take into consideration disabled people’s usage of Rotherham Station and to what extent there would be consideration within the consultation, to people’s concerns regarding the closures. The Chair advised that Rotherham Council had written to the relevant authorities on this matter, with an aim of preventing the decision and to ensure the correct due process would be followed to close the ticket office.
• In response to the question submitted by Councillor Griffin and answer received, Councillor Griffin advised that the answer received did not cover the question asked. The question was regarding City Fibre and whether information had been provided to users of public transport regarding diversions, an example was provided of the number 21 bus service in Whiston that had been diverted for a few days.
• The Chair raised a question as to what the process was for bus companies to be made aware of utility companies or other relevant companies creating diversions on roads. Andy Wright from South Yorkshire Combined Authority (SYMCA) advised that SYMCA had regular dialogue and notifications of disruptions, including the duration and nature of the works on the highway from all four districts including Rotherham. SYMCA engaged with the relevant transport operators to advise of the disruptions, agree diversion routes and ensure notices provided on the effected bus stops. A challenge to this process was that often organisations such as City Fibre did not comply with the anticipated schedule of work, this led to SYCA requesting a revised schedule and re-communicating this to transport operatives and transport users.
• In response to the question submitted by Councillor Pitchley and answer received, it was advised that the number 27 bus service was ceased as the result of a commercial decision, due to low demand and alternative bus service provisions were available.
• The Chair advised that there had been a change to the number 10 bus service timings that serviced Maltby to Doncaster with no notice. The Chair requested an action to reflect this due to the challenge bus service users are facing as a result of the change, for example accessing the prison and health services in Doncaster.
1) That the Head of Transport Infrastructure Service review the process and coordination regarding notifications of disruptions to the highways process.
2) That the Group lead for Transport Planning Policies liaise with First Buses regarding the changes to the number 10 bus service timings.