|
Bath & North East Somerset Council | |||
|
Planning, Transportation & Environment Committee |
AGENDA | |
MEETING DATE: |
16 November 2000 | ||
REPORT AUTHOR: |
David Anderson, Engineering Consultancy Manager | ||
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: |
Steve Howell, Head of Transportation, Access & Waste Management | ||
TITLE: |
|||
WARD: |
WALCOT, LAMBRIDGE, BATHAVON NORTH | ||
BACKGROUND PAPERS: (i) County Council of Avon (A4 London Road, Outer Area, City of Bath) (Reserved Bus Lane) (Peak Hours) Order 1995. (ii) Report to PT&E Committee 23 March 2000 on the Urban Traffic Management Control system. (iii) Bath and North East Somerset District Council (A4 London Road, Outer Area, City of Bath) (Reserved Bus Lanes) (Peak Hours) (Prohibition and Restriction of Waiting) (Variation No.2) (Part I) Order 2000. (iv) Bath and North East Somerset District Council (A4 London Road, Outer Area, City of Bath) (Reserved Bus Lanes) (Peak Hours) (Prohibition and Restriction of Waiting) (Variation No.2) (Part II) Order 2000. | |||
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM | |||
1 SUMMARY
1.1 This report considers the impact of the recent change to 24-hour operation of the inbound bus lane on London Road.
1.2 The report also considers the possible removal of the inbound bus lane on London Road between Safeway and Cleveland Place.
1.3 The report also seeks authority for the Head of Transportation, Access & Waste Management to seal the Order which would remove the short section of outbound bus lane between Snow Hill and Brunswick Street.
1.4 These matters were considered by the Transportation Sub Committee on 3 October 2000, but have been referred to this Committee in view of the policy issues to be considered.
2 RECOMMENDATION
2.1 That Members endorse the continued 24-hour operation of the inbound bus lane, on the London Road, between Beaufort Place and the "Safeway Traffic Gate".
2.2 That Members endorse the retention and continued use of the "Safeway Traffic Gate", located at the end of the bus lane just east of the Safeway junction.
2.3 In view of the fact that the 24-hour bus lane operation was introduced partly under a Temporary Traffic Order, the following actions be approved:
(1) The Head of Transportation, Access & Waste Management be granted delegated authority to take all action necessary to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order to provide 24-hour operation of the inbound London Road bus lane on a permanent basis (and to extend this to the Lambridge Street Junction as explained in paragraphs 5.16 to 5.18 of this report) and in the event of no objections being received and sustained be authorised to seal the Order.
(2) That the draft statement of reasons as set out in Appendix D be approved.
(3) That the Committee note that if duly made objections are received and sustained further to the statutory procedures, that these will be reported back to the Committee for determination.
2.4 As the inbound bus lane between the Safeway junction and Cleveland Place is no longer considered to be advantageous, the following actions be approved:
(1) The Head of Transportation, Access & Waste Management be granted delegated authority to take all action necessary to vary the existing Bus Lane Order, so as to remove the inbound London Road bus lane between Safeway and Cleveland Place, and to vary the waiting and loading restrictions in the vicinity where considered necessary, and in the event of no objections being received and sustained, be authorised to seal the Order.
(2) That the draft statement of reasons as set out in Appendix E be approved.
(3) That the Committee note that if duly made objections are received and sustained further to the statutory procedures, that these will be reported back to the Committee for determination.
2.5 The Head of Transportation, Access & Waste Management be granted delegated authority to seal the Part II Traffic Order referred to in paragraph 4.5 and Section 5 below, [namely the Bath & North East Somerset District Council (A4 London Road, Outer Area, City of Bath) (Reserved Bus Lanes) (Peak Hours) (Prohibition and Restriction of Waiting) (Variation No.2) (Part II) Order 2000] and to take all necessary action to implement the removal of the outbound bus lane between Snow Hill and Brunswick Street.
3 RESOURCE AND CORPORATE POLICY IMPLICATIONS (WHERE NECESSARY, THE VIEWS OF THE COUNCIL'S STATUTORY OFFICERS ARE REFLECTED IN THE COMMENTS BELOW)
3.1 Financial: Adequate financial provision for all the works identified in this report exists within the UTMC project capital funding allocation.
3.2 Staffing: No direct impact.
3.3 Equalities: The provision of 24 hour bus lanes in appropriate locations will improve conditions for users of modes of transport other than the private car, including bus, taxi, cycle, motor cycle and walking.
3.4 Economic: Even a small number of motorists transferring to bus, cycle or walking would result in reduced delays and congestion. This will assist Bath's economy by improving access to the City's attractions, facilities and employment areas.
3.5 Environment: The proposals will have a positive environmental impact, by encouraging reduced journeys made by car and inefficient stop-start driving, and promoting public transport through reduced delays.
3.6 Council Wide Impacts: None.
4 BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
4.1 B&NES Local Transport Plan, published in July 2000, sets out the Council's transport policy objectives and strategy. Three key elements of the strategy are those concerning Traffic Management, Public Transport, and Improving the Environment. A hierarchy has been adopted by the Council comprising a set of priorities for road space within the urban areas, to provide for (in priority order):
4.2 On the London Road the Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) project supports this policy in many ways:
4.3 Implementation of the UTMC scheme was presented to this Committee at the 23 March 2000 meeting. The Committee approved the commencement of consultation on the Traffic Orders required in connection with the London Road bus lanes.
4.4 The Transportation Sub-Committee considered the matter of the "Safeway traffic gate" and short length of inbound 24-hour bus lane, together with the removal of the short length of outbound bus lane, on 1 February 2000. The requisite Order was then advertised, with one objection received.
4.5 At the Planning, Transportation and Environment Committee on 18 May 2000, Members resolved to split the Order, allowing that part of the Order dealing with the traffic gate (Part I) to be sealed. The objection received was against the removal of the outbound bus lane, and this part of the Order (Part II) was deferred pending further consideration. The Part I and Part II Orders are available as Background Papers (iii) and (iv).
4.6 Part I of the Order was duly sealed, and the short length of inbound 24-hour bus lane at the traffic gate was brought into use on 9 August 2000.
4.7 A temporary Traffic Order (lasting up to 18 months) was sealed on 9 August 2000, changing the main section of inbound bus lane (from Beaufort Place to Kensington Place) to 24-hour operation. This action was taken in consultation with the Police to avoid a potentially dangerous situation, which would otherwise have occurred where the morning peak bus lane reached the 24-hour bus lane, just prior to the traffic gate.
4.8 At its meeting on 3 October 2000, the Transportation Sub-Committee considered a number of issues and sought the removal of the whole of the 24-hour bus lane. Since, however, this conflicts with this Committee's present policy on UTMC and bus priority (as referred to in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 above), as well as a previous decision of this Committee and current capital programme provisions, this matter now has to be considered by this Committee as the Parent Committee of the Transportation Sub Committee.
4.9 Members should also be aware that implementation of the Transportation Sub-Committee's wishes would require reversal of previous statutory procedures, including the cancellation of an existing Permanent Traffic Order which has only recently been approved and sealed further to the following of a proper statutory consultation process and immediate works within the highway re signage etc to effectively suspend the current Order pending further statutory procedures effectively to revoke the recently approved Order. If such a proposal were pursued following the requisite statutory procedures, and the proposal/procedures in turn generated objection (which is considered highly likely for example by the bus operators who support 24-hour operation) this would require further consideration by this Committee or the Transportation Sub-Committee. Accordingly, this matter requires due consideration by this Committee reflecting the requisite statutory processes, and the matters outlined in paragraph 4.8 above and the further detailed explanation of all the issues as set out in this report.
5 REVIEW OF BUS LANES
24-hour Bus Lane
5.1 The 24-hour bus lane (illustrated in Appendix B), which was brought into operation with the traffic gate on 9 August 2000, has attracted extensive criticism, both in correspondence received, and as reported in the press.
5.2 Extensive delays have been reported, but observation has indicated that these reports have been exaggerated. Surveys were carried out on 12, 13 and 14 October, in which the journey time from the A4/A46 roundabout to the Cleveland Place junction was measured. The survey results are included at Appendix A.
5.3 During the weekday morning peak period, the journey time ranged from 2.4 mins to 6.0 mins, with an average of 4.0 mins. [It should be noted that the minimum possible driving time, without exceeding the speed limit, would be 2.0 mins. The average journey time of 4.0 mins therefore represents a total delay of 2.0 mins during the morning peak period.]
5.4 In addition, delays on the Batheaston Bypass were observed. These delays, which averaged 3.9 mins during the morning peak period, with a maximum of 6.9 mins, are caused by the limited capacity of the A4/A46 roundabout, which is operated by the Highways Agency.
5.5 Journey times during the middle of the day were longer. On weekdays, the midday journey time from A4/A46 roundabout to Cleveland Place ranged from 3.4 to 8.1 minutes, with an average of 5.0 mins. Delays on the Batheaston by-pass averaged 1.1 minutes.
5.6 On Saturday, the midday journey times along London Road were longer (average 7.0 mins). The delays at the A4/A46 roundabout were also longer, averaging 4.0 mins. Delays on the A46 from Swainswick were also observed at this time, reaching a maximum of 9.0 mins.
5.7 The delays along the London Road are caused primarily by the limited capacity of the Safeway junction. Capacity is limited because inbound traffic has to be restricted to a single lane. There is insufficient road width to provide two inbound lanes. This will always impose a limit on the London Road traffic flow. Although traffic volume is slightly lower at midday than during the morning peak period, delays are greater due to the increased demand for vehicles to turn in and out of the Safeway car park.
5.8 It has been suggested that the 24-hour operation of the inbound bus lane should be removed, reverting back to am peak operation. However, it must be emphasised that this would not significantly improve journey times. This is because the two lanes of traffic would still have to merge into one lane prior to the Safeway junction. Knowing this, most drivers would actually avoid using the bus lane, not wishing to be seen as "queue jumpers".
5.9 Furthermore, reverting to am peak operation would have the following disadvantages:
5.10 It is concluded that, not withstanding the wishes of the Transportation Sub-Committee, the 24-hour bus lane operation should continue for its whole length, i.e. including that length presently covered by the Temporary Traffic Order. This conclusion is reached in view of the overall aim of the Council's UTMC and bus lane policy and the role of this bus lane within this policy; because of the disadvantages set out in paragraph 5.9; and because there is no significant benefit to be gained in traffic management terms in reverting to am peak control. As such, your Officers' recommendation is that this should all be retained and made permanent (see further paragraphs 5.16 - 5.18 below).
Traffic Gate
5.11 The "Safeway traffic gate" (indicated in Appendix B) consists of a traffic signal approximately 70 metres east of the Safeway junction. It works as follows: when the Safeway junction signals show a red signal to inbound vehicles, the traffic gate signal also shows red. Vehicles therefore queue at the traffic gate, rather than proceeding to the Safeway junction. The effect is to create a reservoir of empty road space. Priority vehicles using the bus lane do not have a signal at the traffic gate, so are able to proceed into the reservoir, effectively getting them to the front of the queue.
5.12 The safety of the merge arrangements immediately after the traffic gate has been considered in a recent safety audit. In view of concerns expressed, it has been necessary to change the merge arrangements, so that general traffic no longer has to give way to priority vehicles.
5.13 Concern has been expressed by a resident on the north side of London Road that the traffic gate pushes outbound traffic closer to their property. They are concerned that traffic vibration could be detrimental to their property. Furthermore, two on-street parking spaces outside the nearby shops and business premises have been suspended in the interest of road safety. Concern has been expressed that these businesses could be affected as a result.
5.14 Taking these benefits and concerns into account, it is concluded that the traffic gate should be retained, as it serves a useful function in improving bus priority. It should be noted, however, that it is only possible to retain the traffic gate if the 24-hour bus lane operation is also retained.
Permanent 24-Hour Bus Lane Order
5.15 As explained in paragraph 4.5, the main part of the 24-hour bus lane (as indicated in Appendix B) was introduced using a temporary traffic order. As this can only apply for a maximum period of 18 months, it will be necessary to progress a permanent traffic order to allow the continuation of the 24-hour control after the initial 18-month period. A draft Statement of Reasons in support of this is included at Appendix D. This permanent traffic order would follow the normal processes of advertisement and consultation with any duly made and sustained objections being reported back to this Committee for consideration.
5.16 Whilst advertising this Order the opportunity can be taken to consider extending the inbound bus lane by approximately 170 metres, commencing at the Lambridge Street junction. The location of this extended section is indicated on Appendix B. This would have the advantage of allowing priority vehicles to benefit at the earliest opportunity in the event of queuing or slow moving traffic at Lambridge. It would also reduce the tendency for drivers to form into two lanes, only to have to merge back into one lane when the bus lane starts. This proposal as part of the same proposed permanent traffic order referred to in paragraph 5.15 above would again follow the normal processes of advertisement and consultation with any duly made and sustained objections being reported back to this Committee for consideration.
5.17 In order to provide sufficient road width for the two inbound traffic lanes, it would be necessary to re-position the central island on the pedestrian crossing near the Lambridge Street junction. Similarly, the pedestrian refuge island near Beaufort Place would have to be re-positioned. Moving these refuge islands would reduce the outbound road width to a single lane. The two outbound lanes currently provided are considered to be unnecessary, as they used to provide for a separate lane for the large volume of traffic which used to turn left into Gloucester Road (the old A46) prior to the opening of the Batheaston and Lower Swainswick Bypass.
5.18 It is concluded that a Bus Lane Order should be prepared and advertised to provide 24-hour operation of the inbound bus lane on a permanent basis, and that the extension of the bus lane to the Lambridge Street junction is included in the Order.
Inbound Bus Lane, Safeway to Cleveland Place
5.19 A section of inbound bus lane is currently provided between the Safeway junction and Cleveland Place (indicated in Appendix C), operating in the morning peak period.
5.20 This bus lane was designed to enable buses to pass traffic queuing back from the Cleveland Place junction. The effect of the new Safeway junction, however, is to relocate the main traffic queues from the Cleveland Place junction, to the Safeway junction. This is because the road width at Safeway can only allow a single inbound traffic lane.
5.21 Bus priority is assured by the provision of the inbound bus lane along London Road to the Safeway traffic gate. Once passed the Safeway junction, traffic needs to be able to select the appropriate lane approaching the Cleveland Place junction. Road safety can therefore be improved by removing the inbound bus lane here, to allow the lane selection to be made as early as possible, reducing the need for drivers to change lane. It is considered that bus journey times will not be harmed, as journey times for all traffic between the Safeway and Cleveland Place junctions are now short. It should also be noted that the majority of buses need to enter the outer lane prior to the Cleveland Place junction, and the bus lane is therefore of little benefit to them.
5.22 It is concluded that, in the event that the Committee agree to retain the 24-hour bus lane operation and traffic gate prior to the Safeway junction as recommended by Officers, a variation to the existing Bus Lane Order should be prepared and advertised to remove the section of inbound bus lane between Safeway and Cleveland Place. Again, this proposed permanent traffic order would follow the normal processes of advertisement and consultation with any duly made and sustained objections being reported back to this Committee for consideration. A draft Statement of Reasons is included at Appendix E.
Outbound Bus Lane, Snow Hill to Brunswick Street
5.23 A short section of outbound bus lane is currently provided between the Snow Hill junction and Brunswick Street (indicated in Appendix C), operating in the peak periods. However the bus lane is little used by bus drivers, other than when they need to stop at the bus stop situated within the bus lane. In view of the possible conflict and confusion which could arise should a queue of vehicles, waiting to turn right into the Safeway car park, tail back as far as the bus lane, and in view of the fact that it is of little benefit to buses, the removal of this bus lane was recommended.
5.24 Further to this, the Transportation Sub Committee on 1 February 2000, approved a Traffic Order which would remove the bus lane (and which would also provide the 24-hour inbound bus lane at the traffic gate). Following advertisement of the Order, one objection was received to the proposed removal of the outbound bus lane. (The 24-hour inbound bus lane was unopposed.)
5.25 The matter was reported to the Planning, Transportation & Environment Committee on 18 May 2000. At that meeting, Members resolved to split the Order, thereby allowing that part of the Order dealing with the 24-hour inbound bus lane (part I) to be sealed. The opposed part (part II) of the Order was deferred pending further consideration.
5.26 The objection in question was received from the South West Transport Network (Appendix F). The basis of the objection was the potential for delays to outbound services and the principle of poor provision for bus measures generally. A survey carried out on the bus lane (Appendix G) shows only 7 buses used the bus lane (of the 43 along this route), and 6 of these 7 buses stopped at the bus stop within the bus lane. This demonstrates that most bus drivers believe the bus lane offers no advantage to them. It is concluded this outbound bus lane should be removed.
5.27 Accordingly, authority to seal this Part II Order and to implement the removal of this outbound bus lane is sought.
6 CONSULTATION
6.1 Public consultation is generally undertaken in respect of bus lanes by virtue of public notices displayed on site, and published in the press. This was the case in respect of the short length of 24-hour bus lane at the Safeway traffic gate.
6.2 Officers in consultation with the police implemented the temporary Traffic Order for the conversion of the inbound bus lane from am peak to 24-hour operation (excluding the short length at the Safeway traffic gate). This was because the risk of incidents and violation of the bus lane at the traffic gate were considered high.
6.3 Badgerline First Group have confirmed that "the new bus lane in London Road has, in the view of First Badgerline, proved to be extremely valuable in improving the reliability of services operating along this stretch of road".
6.4 The Executive Committee of the London Road Area Residents Association has also expressed their unanimous support for the 24-hour bus lane, in view of the benefits for cyclists, pedestrians, listed buildings and public transport.
6.5 In the event of the Committee approving the advertising of a permanent 24-hour bus lane Order, as set out in paragraph 5.15 and 5.16 above, including its extension to the Lambridge Street Junction, formal public consultation will be carried out as part of the statutory process with any duly made and sustained objections being reported back to this Committee for consideration. The same processes will apply to the recommended deletion of the inbound bus lane from Safeway to Cleveland Place as set out in paragraphs 5.19 to 5.22 of this report.
6.6 This report was sent to the Trades Unions for comment on 8 November 2000. Any comments received will be reported to the meeting.
London Road 24-Hour (Inbound) Bus Lane, Bath.
(Draft) Statement of Reasons
1 |
To provide better and quicker access for buses, coaches, taxis, emergency vehicles and cycles to Bath City Centre. |
2 |
To improve safety for cyclists, by separating them from the general traffic flow. |
3 |
To improve road safety by avoiding the need for two lanes of general traffic to merge into a single lane prior to the Safeway junction. |
4 |
To encourage the use of cycles and buses for journeys into the City in preference to cars. |
5 |
The bus lane does not significantly affect the average journey time for general traffic on London Road, because the single traffic lane at the Safeway junction is the limiting factor on traffic capacity. |
Removal of London Road inbound peak hour Bus Lane
between the Safeway and Cleveland Place junctions.
(Draft) Statement of Reasons
1. Buses need to be in the offside lane as soon as possible after the bus stops, in order to approach the Cleveland Place junction in the correct lane.
2. Buses have received full priority due to the 24-hour bus lane along London Road prior o the Safeway junction, so will already be at the front of the queue, thereby removing the need for this bus lane.
3. Road safety will be improved by a removing the need for traffic to change lanes at the end of the bus lane.
4. General traffic needs to be in the correct lane as soon as possible approaching the Cleveland Place junction, in order for SCOOT to correctly predict the traffic arriving at the junction.
5. The start of a peak-hour bus lane shortly after the 24-hour bus lane would be confusing for motorists.
MEETING: