Agenda item

(Report by Mid Kent Divisional Manager)

            (Cllr P Davies, Chairman of Tunbridge Wells JTB, was present for this item)

(1)       At the April 2006 meeting of the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board, Members recommended the removal of two lengths of bus lane; in St John’s Road (A26) on the northbound approach to the traffic signals at Speldhurst Road and southbound on St John’s Road (A26) between Woodbury Park Road and Grosvenor Road.

(2)       A report was presented to the January 2007 Joint Board by the Mid Kent Divisional Manager entitled, ‘The need to assist the provision of quality bus services in Tunbridge Wells’. This recommended the need to maintain all existing lengths of bus lane, including the sections near Speldhurst Road and between Woodbury Park Road and Grosvenor Road, as described above, and provide further lengths of bus lane as part of a raft of measures to improve the quality of local bus services.  This was rejected and Members recommended that the original recommendation made at the April 2006 Joint Board be upheld.

(3)       It was important to mention that the existing section of bus lane between Woodbury Park Road and Grosvenor Road was shortly to become part of a much longer length of bus lane, to provide a continuous length between Grosvenor Road and Queens Road. This scheme was, in the main, developer funded and was reported to, and approved by Members at the April 2006 meeting of the Joint Board as part of the 2007/08 Integrated Transport scheme programme.  The decision would work against the spirit of the free travel pilot for 11-16 year olds due to be launched in June of this year.

(4)       The County Council’s Local Transport Plan clearly set out the need to reduce the number of journeys by car and to increase the proportion made by walking, cycling and public transport. Improving all the modes would widen choice for Kent residents and reduce social exclusion for those who did not have access to a car. KCC’s policy was to work with partners to improve the reliability and quality of local bus services.

(5)       Better public transport was absolutely essential to tackling 3 of the 4 shared priorities – accessibility, congestion and pollution. The County Council’s overarching objective for local bus services was to increase patronage levels through encouraging modal shift, through a programme of investment and partnership working with operators and others, to improve the quality and reliability of bus services.  Increased bus patronage contributed to the County Council’s CPA rating and had been a significant factor in the excellent rating of the Local Transport Plan delivery report.  Approximately 80% of bus services across Kent were provided on a commercial basis without financial support from the County Council, although the County Council spent over £7 million on supporting socially necessary services.

(6)       In partnership with operators and local District Councils, Quality Bus Partnerships (QBP) had been developed across Kent in Ashford, Canterbury, Maidstone and Thanet. QBPs had provided a structured approach which had enabled all organisations to work together successfully towards the objective of increasing bus patronage and reliability. This had resulted in significant investment in Real Time Information, bus priority measures, improved bus stop facilities and enabled operators to fund new vehicles with improved accessibility, eg, the Stagecoach ‘Thanet Loop’ service which had benefited from this approach had achieved a 20% increase in patronage during its first 12 months of operation.

(7)       The County Council would also explore opportunities to secure funding from wider sources such as the successful ‘Kickstart’ bids which had improved the quality and frequency of bus services in the Dover, Gravesend, Swale and Thanet areas. The Kent Bus System had been introduced through the QBPs and provided priority for buses at traffic signals, Real Time Passenger Information displays for passengers and the facility for operators to monitor the performance of their services more effectively to improve reliability. It was the County Council’s policy, as set out in the Bus Strategy, that bus lanes should be provided wherever bus frequency totalled 6 or more journeys per hour. The bus lanes met this criteria.  A letter from Arriva Southern Counties which set out the company’s concerns was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

(8)       The 5 Year Integrated Programme in Tunbridge Wells and across Kent included a number of schemes to support bus services through additional bus lanes, new shelters and revised infra-structure for low floor vehicles. In recent years KCC had also funded the purchase of low floor buses on supported services which had significantly improved the quality of the service and provided higher levels of accessibility.

(9)       Similar investment was planned over future years through the LTP which had been developed following discussions with operators and included further improvements designed to assist the movement of buses on the highway.  Investment in better vehicles and higher frequencies was planned by Arriva but this could be jeopardised by a removal of important bus priority facilities.  

(10)     Alongside the Transport Strategy, the Tunbridge Wells Borough Community Plan (adopted in 2004), following an extensive consultation exercise, showed that the transport issues of greatest concern to residents included congestion, public transport, poor roads and parking problems. The Community Plan outlined key actions including promoting and improving sustainable transport modes, including public transport.

(11)     The proposal to remove the bus lanes as described was contrary to County Council Policy as follows:-

·                    the bus lanes in question had 6 or more buses per hour and fully met the County Council’s criteria

·                    bus priority was essential if we were to make buses more reliable and therefore more attractive and so encourage increased usage and reduce congestion

·                    their removal would also result in increased operating costs as operators would have  to provide additional vehicles in order to maintain the same level of service, resulting in poorer quality, older vehicles and declining revenue

·                    contrary to the objectives of ‘Towards 2010’, particularly in terms of free travel for young people up to the age of 16.  Indeed poor bus service punctuality could adversely impact upon the forthcoming pilot scheme in Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells.

(12)     The Board supported the proposal for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that the recommendation of the January meeting of the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board be overturned, and the retention of the bus lanes at the locations for the reasons stated, be supported.

Carried 7 for, 4 against