Agenda item

(1)        The report set out the current position concerning the provision of bus stop clearways in the Canterbury district, and recommended that the Cabinet Member approved the original recommendation of the report considered by the Canterbury Joint Transportation Board (JTB) on 25 November 2008 that all present and future bus stop clearways should be restricted for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.    

(2)     The Department for Transport (DfT) set out its guidelines on the provision of bus stop clearways in DfT circular 02/2003: The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002. Paragraphs 24-32 set out the new regulations which were designed to enable buses to pull up level with the kerb at bus stops in order to facilitate easy access and egress for bus passengers. In addition, the regulations foresee the legally binding requirement of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 2004, which required all buses to be DDA compliant by 2017. This meant that wheel-chair users must be able to access and egress low-floor buses at all times of operation, including evening and early morning services. To restrict access by bus to able-bodied passengers only during those times by restricting the times of operation of bus stop clearways would be contrary to the requirements of the DDA, and would therefore require further changes to the bus stop infrastructure when the whole bus fleet was converted to low-floor access by 2017.

(3)     Paragraph 29 of TSRGD was particularly relevant to the issue of the period of time for which the restrictions should apply to vehicles other than buses stopping at bus stop clearways. It stated:  “.. and that the hours of operation and enforcement should take account of the hours when buses are operating”. As buses operated on all the principal inter-urban routes serving Canterbury between 0600 and 2400, and on most of the city centre routes between 0630 and 2330, and as the DfT guidelines permitted the restriction to apply 24 hours a day, it was recommended that this provision be applied to all present and future bus stop clearways in the Canterbury district. The reason for the uniform approach was that, where a timed restriction applied, vehicles frequently parked during the evening and were not removed until after the morning peak period had commenced, causing serious problems for access and egress at bus stops when they were blocked by parked vehicles.

(4)     The development and improvement of the bus network was dependent on a constructive working partnership between the bus operator, the City Council and the County Council. This had been exemplified in Canterbury by the operation of a Quality Bus Partnership (QBP), which sought to promote improvements to bus services through understanding and co-operation between the parties to the QBP. The extension of bus stop clearway restrictions so that they applied all day every day was an essential pre-requisite for the success of the QBP, as it would be indicative of a serious commitment by KCC to the support of the existing bus network and to its future development for the reasons set out in the report.      

(5)     The following comments from Mr M Northey, Chairman of the Canterbury JTB, had been circulated to Board Members prior to the meeting:-

            “I should be grateful if the Board would consider the following and not reverse the Canterbury JTB recommendation. We debated it thoroughly, did not come lightly to our conclusion and it was passed with a comfortable majority. We believe that HAB will take great account of this. 

The officer paper makes some good arguments for the bus stop clearway -- but only for those hours when the bus is running. There is no merit at all in denying the public highway to parking of other vehicles -- which form the overwhelming majority - when there are no buses needing a clearway. We really must not anticipate what the national government may or may not do in ten years' time. Lessons of the past few months have shown us how uncertain the world is.

Why restrict liberty for road users a) when there is no need to b) because what may or may not happen in the far future?

The correct course is proper enforcement at times when that is necessary - not blanket restrictions at other irrelevant times, which will anyway not be observed by the careless but will inconvenience the responsible”.

(6)     The Canterbury JTB considered a report at its meeting on 25 November 2008 which recommended that all bus stop clearways be restricted for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Its recommendation was rejected, and the present policy of bus stop clearway restrictions applying only between 0700 and 1900 remained. This caused serious problems for buses needing to provide level kerb access and egress for all bus passengers during the evenings and early mornings, and also sent out a message which was contrary to the published policy of Kent County Council which supported the development of sustainable transport and promotes travel by public transport in particular wherever possible. The KCC officers therefore recommended that the Highways Advisory Board should not accept the recommendation of the Canterbury JTB, and should make provision for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week restrictions for all bus stop clearways in the Canterbury district.  

(7)     The Board supported the proposal for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that the recommendation from the Canterbury JTB not to extend bus stop clearway orders for 24 hours per day was not supported.

Carried 9 for, 2 against