Agenda item

The Commission considered an item placed on the agenda at the request of Mr. A. D. Bailey CC, local member for Blaby and Glen Parva concerning a proposal for a bus corridor scheme in conjunction with the City Council on the A426. A copy of the report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes.

 

The proposed scheme had received a significant level of public and press attention, with Glen Parva Parish Council having submitted a lengthy consultation response and a petition with approximately 4,400 signatures.

 

The Director of Environment and Transport delivered a presentation outlining the background to the scheme. A copy of the slides forming the presentation is filed with these minutes. Arising from the presentation, the following key points were noted:

 

·         The decision to implement the scheme was based around the need for a quicker, more reliable and punctual bus service. The two existing traffic lanes would be retained as part of the scheme, which meant there would be no reduction in general traffic capacity;

·         The scheme was part of an initiative to increase the number of people travelling on buses. Increasing the reliability and journey time of the bus network was recognised as being essential to increasing their use;

·         Some footpath widths would be reduced along the route as part of the proposals, though footpaths of 1.5 metres or less would be increased. All footpaths along the route would meet the national guideline minimum width of 1.8 metres;

·         The A426 was a key access route to the City. By improving bus access there would be knock-on economic benefits to the County.

 

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting the local member, Mr. A. D. Bailey CC who thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present his argument. Mr. Bailey tabled a letter he had received in 2005 from the then Assistant Director of Environment and Transport giving an assurance that bus lanes would not be pursued along the A426 at the expense of footpath width. A copy of this letter, together with some supporting information also provided is filed with these minutes.

 

Mr. Bailey outlined his argument against the scheme under the following headings:

 

Health and Safety

·         Sections of the A426 were not wide enough to accommodate bus lanes. Though it was acknowledged that the scheme would meet the national guidelines for minimum footpath width requirements, the impact of reducing the width of the footpath at certain points would have knock-on effects to the health and safety of cyclists and pedestrians;

Bus Service Reliability

 

·         The scheme was expected to reduce the bus journey times on key routes along the A426 by around five minutes. It was felt that this did not represent a significant benefit and that most people made decisions about whether to travel on buses based on cost and convenience. It was acknowledged that the Council had little influence over the cost of fares and that this issue lay with the bus companies;

 

Value for Money

 

·         Though the scheme was grant funded to a large extent, it would still require some £600,000 of capital funding from the County Council. It was felt that the majority of benefits of the scheme would be felt in the City rather than the County and that the benefits put forward did not represent good value for money for County Council taxpayers;

 

Public Opinion

 

·         Only 30% of over 1,000 respondents to the consultation had given their support to the scheme. Around 4,400 residents had signed a petition opposing the scheme and local councillors at district and parish level and Mr. Andrew Robathan MP were known to be against the scheme.

 

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr. Richard Johnson, Glen Parva Parish Councillor and Lead Petitioner, who thanked the Commission for the opportunity to represent local people’s views on the issue. Mr. Johnson circulated a hard copy presentation to members (a copy is filed with these minutes) and outlined the Parish Council’s concerns against the proposals under the following headings:

 

Value for Money

• A reduction in journey times of five minutes was not felt to represent good value for money for a scheme costing in excess of £4 million;
  
  
• A number of other councils were pursuing “soft technology” in favour of more invasive options. These included satellite location information and smart phone apps, giving accurate bus timetabling data. It was questioned why the County and City Councils had not pursued these alternative options as a first port of call as they could have proved to be more cost effective;
  
  

Safety and the Environment

 

• Reduction of footpath widths would negatively impact upon pedestrians and homeowners who required access to driveways. It was felt that, though 1.8 metres met the national guidelines for minimum footpath width, this should not be viewed as a positive effect of the scheme;
  
  
• The fact that the bus lanes would not be implemented consistently along the complete route would add to the “stop, start” nature of the traffic congestion issue along the A426;
  
  
• The proposal was for 24 hour bus lanes, despite buses only using the lanes infrequently throughout the daytime. It was felt that this would put unnecessary pressure on traffic flow.
  
  

Modal Shift

·         The addition of a bus lane would not achieve the modal shift necessary to get more people using buses. Buses were too expensive and infrequent and did not go to the desired locations.

In response to the points raised by Mr. Bailey and Mr. Johnson and following debate by the Commission, the Director of Environment and Transport clarified the following issues:

• Since 2005, the Authority’s position in regard to footpath width and bus lanes had changed. The scheme had been fully safety audited and footpaths meeting the advised minimum width were deemed to be safe for use;
  
  

·         The reason for operating the bus lanes on a 24 hour basis was to avoid adding to the traffic capacity along the route. Cyclists would use the bus lane as a cycle lane at all times;

·         A consultant had investigated previous experiences where bus lanes had been installed and this had proved that modal shift would be achieved with a 10-14% increase in passenger numbers up to March 2015 and a 20-40% increase by 2026. The reason to install a bus lane along this route was in the most part due to it being one of the most congested routes without bus priority;

·         There was no reference in the proposals to air quality as the area was not an air quality management area;

·         “Soft technology” would be part of the new scheme – with measures such as “Smart Ticketing”, personalised travel plans and real-time bus usage information;

·         It was pointed out that many other councils were referred to as no longer installing bus lanes as they had already installed them on their key strategic routes.

 

In summing up the debate, the Commission expressed a wish to particularly highlight the following key points:

 

·         There was presently insufficient evidence to support the theory that modal shift would be achieved by implementing a bus corridor scheme along the A426. “Soft technology” solutions should also be explored to such a modal shift;

·         The scheme did not appear to offer good value for money to County residents and appeared to offer only marginal benefits to bus users;

·         Junction improvements, particularly in respect of the inbound approach to Soar Valley Way, should be considered a higher priority issue to ensure better traffic flow along the route;

·         It would be necessary to gain further clarity of exactly where along the route footpath widths would be reduced and exactly how this would impact pedestrians and cyclists.

RESOLVED:

That the views of the Commission as set above be circulated to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 18 December 2012.

 

(The meeting adjourned at 12 noon and re-convened at 2.00pm.)