Agenda item

Further to the questions submitted under Item 2, a draft report to the Cabinet is attached for members’ wider consideration of this issue.

 

The Commission considered a Cabinet report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning proposals to make permanent an experimental 24 hour bus lane scheme on the A6, Leicester Road, Oadby. A copy of the report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes.

 

The Chairman explained that the Cabinet report, which would be considered at a meeting on 16 November, had been brought before the Commission as a result of the questions submitted by Mr. Kaufman under Minute 112. It was felt that by debating this report, the Commission would be enabled to consider the issue fully and would also allow the respective local members to address the Commission, in addition to Mr. Kaufman himself.

 

The Director, in introducing the report, explained that the A6 bus and cycle scheme had been a key component of the LTP2 and was also a key factor in delivering performance improvements to bus services that were projected to be part of the LTP3. The scheme had initially been an ‘experimental’ traffic regulation order and would usually have been confirmed as permanent by the Director under delegated powers, however, given that local members had raised concerns a Cabinet decision on the matter was required.

 

With the consent of the Chairman, Mr. Kaufman addressed the Commission and explained that, despite being generally supportive of measures to encourage the use of public transport, he felt that as a result of the scheme regular highway had been lost at the racecourse roundabout and a continuous route along the road was not now available for other traffic. As part of his address, Mr. Kaufman raised the following additional concerns:

 

·                    The scheme that was built was not the same as that which was consulted on with local residents;

·                    At the initial consultation meeting, inaccurate plans of the scheme had been displayed;

·                    An additional meeting between local residents and Council officers had been promised but not convened. There appeared to have been a lack of communication between the two parties;

·                    The local members’ views were not taken account of as part of the consultation process;

 

With the consent of the Chairman, the local members for Oadby, Mr. D. A. Gamble CC and Mr. M. Griffiths CC addressed the Commission and explained that they were thankful for the opportunity to speak on this item. They raised the following principal points:

 

·                    A public meeting with local residents had been agreed to by a Council officer but had not been convened;

·                    It had been agreed that the comments of local residents would be forwarded to a Council officer. There had been no response to those comments;

·                    There was much support in the area for a peak two hour bus lane, but there appeared to be no evidence to support 24 operation of a bus lane along that route;

·                    The approximate cost of the scheme - £308,000 – was not felt to represent good value for money for the taxpayer, particularly in the present economic climate;

·                    There was a lack of consistency between the stretch of road in the City, which was a peak hour bus lane and the County, which was due to be a 24 hour lane. It was felt that this would cause some confusion.

In response to the issues raised, the Director of Environment and Transport made the following points:

 

·                    The scheme had required some minor alterations, shortening the bus lane by some 60 metres, which was not outside public property and which were unforeseen at the time of consultation;

·                    The City Council had installed a peak hour bus lane along the A6, as they had had to take away a portion of the road from regular traffic. This had not been the case in the County’s portion of the road. It was highlighted that the bus lane that was now in operation was not available for regular traffic beforehand;

·                    The safety and design features of the road layout would deliver quicker and more reliable movement along the A6;

·                    The fact that no public meeting had been held was the result of a misunderstanding. Council officers had understood the local Members to be making arrangements for the meeting to take place, as it was felt not to be the responsibility of Council officers to organise this. Had a meeting been convened, Council officers would have been willing to attend;

·                    There had appeared to be significant relief of congestion along the route as a result of the scheme and it had allowed the bus services better to keep to time;

·                    The £308,000 budget for the scheme had now been spent.  This covered a number of improvements for cyclists and pedestrians in the area as well as the bus lane itself;

·                    Should there be a decision of the Cabinet to reconsider a two hour peak time bus lane it was likely that a new consultation process would have to be entered into.

 

In considering the points raised by the Director, Mr. Kaufman and local members, the Commission raised the following points:

 

·                    There was a genuine concern that drivers would be confused between the lack of consistency between the City and County portions of the road. A similar portion of road along the A6 approach to Loughborough had a peak hour bus lane, which it was felt members of the public did not always use outside of peak hours because it was labeled a ‘bus lane’;

·                    The LTP3’s long term strategy of reduced use of coloured road surfacing appeared to be at odds with what was being proposed here;

·                    The consultation process did not appear to have been carried out satisfactorily.

 

It was proposed by Dr. Feltham and seconded by Mr. Page:

 

“That the Cabinet be advised that it is the Commission’s view that the option for a two hour peak time bus lane on the A6, Leicester Road should be urgently investigated.”

 

The motion was carried, 12 members having voted for the motion, none against andd with one abstention.