Agenda item

(Report by County Transportation Manager)

(1)       At the meeting of the Board in May 2007, Members requested a report on the feasibility of bus lanes in Tunbridge Wells operating at peak times only and allowing HGV’s access.  As there were bus lanes elsewhere in Kent, consideration of the issue should be on a countywide basis.  The report outlined options under consideration both nationally and locally for the use of bus lanes by other vehicles and on a part-time basis.

(2)       A priority vehicle lane was an area of carriageway reserved, using a Traffic Regulation Order, for the use of buses, bicycles, goods vehicles and taxis.  In addition to conventional bus lanes, a number of other models of priority vehicle lanes had been trialled in the UK and the report identified the benefits of each approach.  The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allowed local authorities to introduce experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) without public consultation.

(3)       A bus lane was an area of carriageway reserved, using a Traffic Regulation Order, primarily for use by buses and coaches during the advertised hours of operation.  Unless the bus lane had a 24 hour restriction, outside of these hours, all traffic was permitted to use bus lanes.  In Kent, bicycles and Hackney carriages were also permitted to use the lanes but not Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV’s) or Light Goods Vehicles (LGV’s).  Private Hire taxis were also excluded from using bus lanes.  The concept of using designated lanes for buses was well understood and widely used by highway authorities in urban areas where bus services were adversely affected by traffic congestion.  The introduction of priority measures in Kent (for example bus lanes) had played a significant role in generating the 17% increase in bus usage achieved during Kent’s first Local Transport Plan (LTP), through increasing the profile of services as well as improving reliability.

(4)       Bus priority measures were designed and introduced to help achieve easier and more consistent journey times through congested areas, particularly in towns and cities.  Reliability was also very important in assisting operators to meet the standards set down by the industry regulator, the Traffic Commissioner.  The challenge of operating 95% of all services within a “window” of 1 minute early and 5 minutes late was becoming increasingly difficult as traffic conditions worsened and congestion increased.  Without assistance from the Highways Authority, the costs of catering for congestion would lead to a reduction in more marginal routes which were currently operated without financial support.

(5)       Reliable bus services were also important to passengers.  In almost every survey about bus services, reliability was one of the most important issues for bus users.  Unreliable bus services led to declining bus patronage, increasing congestion on already busy roads.  Providing bus priority measures such as bus lanes were also important in generating operator investment in new buses through Quality Bus Partnership agreements.  In Canterbury, Stagecoach introduced 18 new low floor double-decker buses following the provision of bus lanes on the outskirts of the city centre.

(6)       The hours of operation of any bus lane would need to consider:-

·                    the hours of bus service operation and frequency

·                    the extent and timing of traffic congestion and its impact on bus reliability

·                    the method for enforcing bus lanes

(7)       Bus lanes generally operated for one of the following periods:-

·                    24 hours

·                    12 hour period (usually 7am – 7pm)

·                    peak hours only (usually 7-10am and 4-7pm)

(8)       Some local authorities outside London did use 24 hour operation of bus lanes.  However as most bus services did not operate between the hours of 12pm and 6am such a restriction was excessive and many such authorities were reverting to a 12 hour period.

(9)       Although bus services derived most benefit from bus lanes at peak periods, such peak periods were spreading (for example in Canterbury) and traffic patterns were becoming less predictable due to changing employment patterns (e.g. shift work and call centres).  With this in mind, many local authorities had reverted from a peak-hour operation to a 12 hour period of operation (i.e. 7am – 7pm).

(10)     Many local authorities had found that the most appropriate hours of bus lane operation to include in Traffic Regulation Orders was 7am – 7pm.  This made such measures self-enforcing and reduced the need for camera enforcement and the issuing of Penalty Charge Notices.  The majority of bus lanes in Kent operated between these hours and experienced relatively low levels of abuse by other traffic despite the absence of camera enforcement.  Within Tunbridge Wells, there was little potential benefit to motorists from entering bus lanes during the off-peak period.  The cost of changing the signage was £10,000 and this could provide better value for money spent on other appropriate schemes.

(11)     A Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) was defined as a vehicle with a maximum gross weight in excess of 7.5 tonnes and were identified through yellow and orange striped rear marking plates.  At present the DfT had not produced any specific guidance on the use of bus lanes by HGV’s.

(12)     There were concerns amongst bus operators about the use of bus lanes by HGV’s.  It was not clear whether HGV use encouraged other vehicles such as Light Goods Vehicles, for example white vans and delivery vehicles, or other traffic to use bus lanes which could undermine bus reliability.  There was also concern about HGV’s, particularly non-UK lorries, parking or waiting in bus lanes and causing an obstruction or making slow turning movements into side streets, further delaying bus movements.  It was recommended that more work was undertaken in consultation with the DfT before making a decision on this in Kent.

(13)     DfT note 2/07 provided guidance on the use of bus lanes by motorcycles.  A number of experimental Traffic Regulation Orders had been made permanent allowing motorcyclists to use bus lanes.  Research conclusions suggested both potential benefits and drawbacks.  The main drawback of such an approach was the potential conflict between motorcyclists and other users, such as pedal cycles and pedestrians.  Motorcycles tended to travel at faster speeds than buses, cycles and HGV’s and this could have safety implications.  DfT guidance suggested consultation with other road user groups before making a permanent TRO.  In London, cycling groups strongly opposed the introduction of motorcycles into bus/cycle lanes as part of a pilot scheme, citing an increase in road accidents.  Motorcycles had been permitted to use bus lanes in Northern Ireland since 2004.  Motorcycles were easily distinguishable from other vehicle types using existing detection techniques so technical issues with enforcement were unlikely.

(14)     A High Occupancy Vehicle lane was an area of carriageway restricted under a Traffic Regulation Order to allow cars with multiple occupants to use it.  HOV lanes had been backed in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/06 from the Department for Transport.  It stated that “HOV lanes are a method of utilising spare capacity in existing bus lanes”.  Car sharing organisations such as Liftshare supported the extension of bus lanes to HOV status.

(15)     One of the few trials of HOV lanes had taken place on Stanningley Road in Leeds which was introduced in 1998.  The lanes were available to buses, coaches, other vehicles carrying two or more people, motorcycles and pedal cycles.  HGV’s over 7.5 tonnes were not permitted to use them.  The HOV lanes operated in the morning and evening peak periods (07:00 – 10:00, 16:00 – 19:00 on Mondays to Fridays).  Monitoring data had shown increases in average car occupancy and bus patronage as well as big improvements in journey time reliability for people using both modes.

(16)     The application of an HOV lane was most suited to heavily trafficked corridors, particularly during peak times, where a Local Authority wanted to encourage car sharing and discourage single occupancy car traffic.  There were at present no HOV lanes in Kent and with no means of camera enforcement at present it would be difficult to ensure that such lanes were not being abused.

(17)     There were a range of priority vehicle lanes that had been piloted across the UK with varying degrees of success.  Any measure needed to be appropriate to the local conditions but clearly understood by motorists and other road users.  The vast majority of the travelling public understood which vehicles were permitted to use conventional bus lanes, without referring to each individual sign or marking.  Bus lanes provided priority through congested urban areas which helped to ensure bus reliability.

(18)     The Board:-

(a)       supported the proposal for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that bus lanes in Kent continue to be operational between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00 pm; and

(b)       did not support further investigations being undertaken to establish the benefits and disbenefits of HGV’s using bus lanes.