Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version

)

Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)
Table of contents
Overview Foreword Background Why help buses? Achieving success Securing the benefits More information Strategic options Establishing the vision Prevailing conditions Choosing the most appropriate measure Strategic options Bus corridors Whole route Park and ride Consultation Implementation & delivery Background The political challenge Operator involvement Implementation and evaluation process Maintaining the benefits Route management Traffic management Special initiatives Edinburgh Greenways London Bus Initiative West Midlands Showcase Leeds City Centre Oxford, Historic City Newport, Smaller Towns

-1-

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

West Bromwich Town Centre Case studies Guide to case studies With-flow bus lanes Contra-flow bus lanes Green routes Bus gates and bus only links Rising bollards Guided busways Pre signals and bus advance areas Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD) Bus SCOOT Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Mixed priority street Bus friendly traffic calming High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes No-car lanes Bus park and ride The bus stop environment Other measures Performance indicators & monitoring Why do we need to monitor performance? Bus service improvements Improvements for passengers Effects on other traffic An example approach Frequently asked questions Residents Commerce Industry Signs & regulations Introduction Bibliography Glossary Contacts Overview Foreword Background Why help buses? Achieving success Securing the benefits More information Strategic options

-2-

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Establishing the vision Prevailing conditions Choosing the most appropriate measure Strategic options Bus corridors Whole route Park and ride Consultation Implementation & delivery Background The political challenge Operator involvement Implementation and evaluation process Maintaining the benefits Route management Traffic management Special initiatives Edinburgh Greenways London Bus Initiative West Midlands Showcase Leeds City Centre Oxford, Historic City Newport, Smaller Towns West Bromwich Town Centre Case studies Guide to case studies With-flow bus lanes Contra-flow bus lanes Green routes Bus gates and bus only links Rising bollards Guided busways Pre signals and bus advance areas Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD) Bus SCOOT Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Mixed priority street Bus friendly traffic calming High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes No-car lanes Bus park and ride The bus stop environment Other measures

-3-

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Performance indicators & monitoring Why do we need to monitor performance? Bus service improvements Improvements for passengers Effects on other traffic An example approach Frequently asked questions Residents Commerce Industry Signs & regulations Introduction Bibliography Glossary Contacts

Overview
This resource pack will provide information on the Department for Transport’s policies and guidance on measures to give buses priority to enable bus travel to be more attractive and reliable.

Foreword
"I am delighted to see the publication of this, the Second Edition of the Bus Priority Resource Pack. Government has consistently highlighted the important role that the bus plays in our towns and cities and we are firmly committed to making the bus a more attractive travel option. We have worked with the bus industry and local authorities through the Bus Partnership Forum to create the conditions for encouraging greater use of buses. Introducing measures that minimise delays and improve the reliability of bus services are a crucial part of achieving this. While many successful measures have been introduced around the country, we fully recognise that planning and implementing a programme of priorities for buses is not a simple task. It is often the practical details that make the difference between the success or failure of a scheme. I therefore welcome this initiative from the Bus Partnership Forum, which provides best practice guidance, and shares the practical experience gained by local authorities, Passenger Transport Executives and bus operators around the country. I look forward to seeing more new and innovative measures, which provide real benefits to passengers, emerging as a result of it." Charlotte Atkins MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

-4-

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Background
The road network needs to move people and goods efficiently if we are to ensure the social and economic well being of our communities. Buses have a vital role to play in this as they can make excellent use of limited road space, carrying many more passengers than a private car for a given amount of road space. However, the potential benefit of the bus can be stifled by traffic congestion. Local authorities and bus operators need to work in partnership to make buses a more attractive alternative to the car by releasing them from the congestion delays experienced by other road users. This in turn will improve reliability and help make the bus an attractive choice for more car users as well as providing quicker journeys for both bus and other road users. Providing the right conditions for this to happen is not a simple task. This overview seeks to outline some of the ways in which local authorities can develop a successful bus strategy that will ensure that bus travel becomes a realistic alternative to the private car.

What is being done?
The Government has consistently made it clear that the bus has a crucial part to play in present and future transport policy. In the short term, buses provide the best means of increasing public transport services. Government, in partnership with local authorities and bus operators, is positively encouraging bus travel through a number of measures, including capital funding through the local transport plan process, concessionary fares schemes, the development of Quality Bus Partnerships, real time information and timetable information systems.

Why help buses?
The challenge that we face
The challenge is, of course, well known and understood. Since 1950, car ownership in the UK has grown from 2 million cars to over 22 million and use of the car has grown commensurately. The capacity of our roads has not increased at anything like this rate and this has led to severe traffic congestion, affecting the ability of buses to deliver reliable services.

Who is affected?
Transport affects the economic and social well being of everyone. Well over 11 million bus journeys are made in Great Britain every day. Better bus services in our towns and cities contribute towards the regeneration and revitalisation of both the business community and our living areas. An efficient, reliable bus service can be an attractive alternative to those who have access to a car. Furthermore, an efficient bus service ensures social inclusion by providing access to jobs, education, health, social and leisure services to those without access to a car. A wide variety of people use buses but many people, especially older people, children, people with disabilities, women and the less well off, are often dependent upon having a reliable bus service.

-5-

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

What do people want?
In almost every survey about bus services, reliability is one of the most important issues for bus users. Motorists cite reliable bus services as a pre-requisite for leaving their car at home. Bus priority measures assist buses through traffic, with more consistent journey times helping deliver timetable reliability. Buses cannot take short cuts to get around congestion; they need help to get through it.

What will more bus measures deliver?
Without priority measures bus services get caught up in general traffic congestion, especially in our towns and cities during peak periods. Experience from schemes around the country shows that bus lanes may reduce bus travel times by up to 7 to 9 minutes along a 10 kilometre congested route and also improve their reliability. Reliability means buses operate in accordance with their timetables on every journey which is important to bus users. Measures to assist buses in one metropolitan city have halved the variation in journey times that operators experienced in that corridor, enabling them to operate their buses more efficiently. By introducing bus priority with other improvements, services can become more attractive to potential passengers. For example, a comprehensive quality corridor initiative in a major conurbation delivered a 75 per cent increase in bus passengers over 5 years, with 20 per cent being new customers.

What if we don’t do it?
With car ownership continuing to grow, traffic congestion will get worse. Large-scale road construction is not a sustainable option and so greater use of public transport, along with more cycling and walking, must provide our main answers. Initiatives to assist buses must be seen to be part of the traffic congestion solution, by providing more people with better and faster travel at the same time as reducing the need to travel by car.

Achieving success
Which strategy?
It is important to recognise that there is a range of strategies available and that there is not an ’off the shelf’ solution that will maximise the benefits to buses regardless of location. The most appropriate strategy in any one area will depend upon the prevailing local conditions. In general, the reliability and journey time benefits of bus initiatives tend to follow the maxim ’the whole is more than the sum of the parts’. A range of strategies can be adopted. These can include taking a full network approach where the entire bus network is considered or a whole route strategy where delays along the length of a particular route are addressed. Alternatively, in a corridor strategy, important corridors within an area served by a number of major routes are treated. Delays can also be treated on the basis of hot spots where specific points of delay located around the area are addressed.

-6-

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Who should be involved?
It is vital for local authorities and bus operators to work in partnership at all stages of the initiative, from developing the strategy, to promoting completed measures to customers and the general public. To ensure that full commitment is achieved for the implementation, a wider group of stakeholders should be involved in the development of the strategy. Experience has shown that opposition to measures can be minimised if early stakeholder involvement takes place. Stakeholders, besides the local authority and the bus operators, are likely to include the highway authority (if different); neighbouring authorities; the passenger transport executives (PTEs); the police; signal authorities; bus user organisations; residents’ organisations; cyclist groups; business and trader organisations.

Who should be informed?
As well as those stakeholders directly affected by the measures, the wider public needs to be informed of the proposals and why they are happening. Remember that, to many, the measures will be unfamiliar and misunderstood, and the benefits unclear. It may be beneficial to encourage local media to run stories on bus schemes as a general issue rather than wait until specific schemes are developed and opposition entrenched.

What will be successful?
The most successful measures have been those which have been designed to meet the circumstances of a particular route or corridor. It is crucial that these measures are developed as part of an overall road management strategy to improve bus services in the local area. An important part of a strategy is the efficient management and coordination of traffic schemes, maintenance and other roads works. When these measures are complimented by enforcement and bus friendly traffic management, delays to all traffic, including buses, can be significantly minimised. Under new powers local authorities can enforce bus lanes using CCTV cameras in order to maintain the benefits to bus services. Enforcement can also target offences such as abandoned or untaxed vehicles.

How do we convince people of the benefits?
Early stakeholder involvement and well targeted information about the proposals is vital. Of at least equal importance is the determination of councillors and senior officers to see the measures succeed. It can be daunting to attempt to progress schemes when there is the presumption that there will be opposition to them. There are, however, numerous examples of successful implementation. Many have achieved their aims in full and still more have shown that disbenefits predicted by objectors have not occurred. The resource pack that accompanies this overview tells you how this has been done.

Securing the benefits

-7-

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Selecting appropriate measures
Bus schemes are often part of a comprehensive treatment of a road corridor with enhanced facilities for all types of travel. The most successful measures tend to feature an iterative design process that continues throughout the planning and implementation phase. In designing the most appropriate measure it is advisable to consider the whole process, for example to: establish the form of strategy to be adopted; identify problem areas consistent with that strategy; agree with stakeholders the nature of the problem; discuss possible solutions to specific problems; investigate the preferred solutions and compare benefits; assure benefits are achieved for bus users; monitor the measure before and after it is carried out; and make adjustments to measures if they would improve the benefits.

Enforcement and maintenance
It is essential to maintain the benefits of bus measures and to do this requires a positive approach to enforcement and highway maintenance. Basic design and maintenance procedures include ensuring that bus priority measures are clearly seen and well maintained, and that the effects on buses are considered when highways are maintained. Active enforcement should aim for total compliance; even if it leads to direct costs being incurred with no revenue stream. Specific actions to consider can include: decriminalisation of parking enforcement to give control to local authorities; and camera enforcement or roving wardens/attendants.

More information
Resource pack
The resource pack provides decision makers with advice and guidance on how to make bus initiatives successful. It consists of a series of leaflets which provide evidence of successful implementation, and advice on how to promote and manage the process. This illustrates the benefits achieved through a whole range of experiences countrywide.

Web site
A web site dedicated to bus measures (http://www.dft.gov.uk/decmigration/localtrans/busprioritythewayahead/) contains all the information in the resource pack.

-8-

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Presentational CD ROM
Attached to this resource pack is a CD ROM that contains a range of presentational information. This information can be used to tailor presentations on bus initiatives to a range of audiences and can be customised to suit each user.

Contacts
To get a free copy of the resource pack and overview, contact: DfT Free Literature, PO Box 236, WETHERBY, LS23 7NB. Tel: 0870 122 6236 Fax: 0870 122 6237 Please quote the following reference: 03DFT005 The resource pack and overview can also be obtained through the web site: http://www.dft.gov.uk/decmigration/localtrans/busprioritythewayahead/. All of the leaflets, along with other information on bus priority, can be accessed and downloaded, free of charge, from the bus priority web site. To find out more about bus priority measures, contact: Department for Transport, Traffic Management Division, 3/19 Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR. Tel: 0207 944 2599 Fax: 0207 944 2211 Email: buspriority@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Strategic options
Establishing the vision
Legislation requires local authorities to prepare a bus strategy that sets out the vision for bus services in their area and details the general policies to meet this vision. Local authorities are also given the powers to enter into quality partnerships with operators and establish quality contracts if these are felt to be appropriate to delivering the vision. The overarching bus strategy describes the scope of the bus services and the role of the local authorities in providing them. The bus priority strategy needs to show how services can be improved.

Prevailing conditions
The first step is to review bus services based on a number of basic parameters, which will involve the identification of the range of problems and opportunities including: specific locations of delays; heavily-used corridors; and high frequency/high patronage routes.

-9-

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Choosing the most appropriate measure
The various measures for achieving bus priority are outlined in the case study leaflets contained within this resource pack. The most appropriate solution in any one area will depend upon the: prevailing conditions in the area; and objectives of the strategy. However, in all cases the appropriate solution must be part of an effective traffic management regime.

Strategic options
Once a local authority has collated the basic information, it can then consider which of the various strategic approaches it will take. Examples of these approaches are given below.

Hot spots
The hot spot strategy involves reviewing the bus network and identifying where the major delays are. These delays can be caused by a number of factors, such as: congestion; inappropriate parking; servicing activity; outdated signals; or poor interchange and boarding facilities. It is advisable to mark the delay hot spots on a plan, as this can help in prioritising the measures needed to treat them. Prioritising can be based on factors such as the number of routes affected, total delays incurred, patronage levels and/or interchange arrangements. The main advantage of the hot spot approach is that the places where there are real difficulties are tackled in a rational and programmed way. Very often a single bus priority measure will benefit a number of routes. For example, bus priority at traffic signals can help several routes. This is an effective way of targeting funds to greatest effect across the whole bus network. The disadvantage of dealing with only one location at a time on any particular route is that any benefits gained there could easily be lost along other sections of the route and overall journey times might not decrease. It could also spread funds too thinly across the whole bus network.

Bus corridors
An alternative to the hot spots approach is to promote integrated solutions for particular lengths of the bus network in a coordinated way. This typically means looking at heavily used bus corridors, often connecting major town centres. This strategy aims to coordinate individual schemes into a managed route, often improving interchanges, passenger information, waiting facilities and even ticketing at the same time.

- 10 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The corridor approach has worked well in several parts of the country. It has been used to integrate bus lanes with enforcement and urban traffic control (UTC) improvements. This has been achieved by, for example, using selective vehicle detection (SVD) and traffic management software such as SCOOT, PROMPT, MOVA and SPRINT among many others. In some areas, local authorities are considering dedicated maintenance regimes along these corridors, so that the benefits of bus priority last as long as possible. For example, the Greater Manchester quality bus corridor programme aims to complete work on 19 corridors by 2006, and has involved over 20 key stakeholders. Many operators recognise the benefits of the corridor approach. Some have invested in corridor studies, such as that provided by GO (North East) on the A690 Durham Road to Sunderland corridor. The corridor strategy is sometimes upgraded to cover a ’transport area’ or a ’transport quadrant’. This encompasses the wider corridor catchment area and includes measures such as improved walking routes to bus stops and wider traffic calming measures on surrounding roads. The main advantage of this strategy is that it addresses problems where the need is greatest, to the benefit of several bus routes using the same corridor. The main disadvantage, however, is that this strategy does not necessarily encourage new bus users in more diverse areas. Also, delays can still happen off the main corridor, reducing the effectiveness of the scheme.

Whole route
This approach applies the corridor strategy to a whole bus route from start to finish. The whole route approach inevitably overlaps with other bus routes, so spreading the benefits. Again, local authorities can use a transport area approach as part of a whole route strategy. The main advantage of the whole route approach is that the benefits it brings can be controlled and therefore maintained. Journey times, reliability and route management are more easily dealt with. The Superoute proposals in Tyne and Wear link several urban areas and improve approximately 20 routes. In the capital, the London Bus Initiative (now known as BusPlus) has been developed on over 70 routes in two main branches. Whole route strategies are best suited to larger urban areas where routes are more likely to overlap. The main disadvantage of the whole route approach is that it concentrates funding on a single route, benefiting other routes only where it overlaps with them.

Park and ride
The park and ride strategy is especially focussed on getting people to change to catching the bus instead of using their cars. However, the strategy relies heavily on there being enough space on the edge of town centres to provide adequate parking facilities. Effective park and ride schemes need a high level of bus priority on the transfer route. Potential passengers must be able to see a clear benefit over the private car. The key attraction for motorists is likely to be a faster journey time, so bus priority measures such as reallocating road space will be needed to increase the benefit of park and ride buses over the private car.

- 11 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Consultation
A strategic approach to consultation is essential if bus priority is to succeed. It is quite easy to introduce bus priority where congestion is not severe and parking is not limited. Local authorities need to consider carefully whether it is worth introducing bus priority measures in that sort of location. Bus priority is most useful where congestion and parking are problems. However, these are the areas that tend to generate the most vocal opposition. Local authorities need to predict where opposition is likely to occur and be ready to explain what they are proposing to do and why. That is why there must be a clear consultation strategy. The consultation must allow all parties to identify and understand the key issues and prepare to work around any problems. This is more likely to happen if all stakeholders are involved in the discussions to solve whatever problems arise. Key stakeholders must feel that they have ’ownership’ of bus priority measures.

Implementation & delivery
Background
Most local authorities have produced comprehensive bus strategies as part of their local transport plans (LTPs). These strategies are usually endorsed by everyone with an interest in sustainable travel and set out ambitious objectives for developing bus travel as a viable alternative to the car. However, very often the devil is in the detail. When local authorities try to turn their strategic vision into a practical programme, problems can appear. The difficulties may vary, but they are generally reduced to: meeting the political challenge; getting bus operators actively involved; and implementing and evaluating the scheme.

The political challenge
Few people disagree with the vision of a transport system that is more accessible while cutting congestion and pollution. The political challenge is to develop actual transport schemes that clearly deliver those benefits. The skill needed then is the ability to persuade people that they would benefit from schemes which limit car use, even if they consider themselves to depend on their cars. Council officers can provide many of the answers. But it is the local councillor who has to face constituents and give assurances on what could be controversial plans. What arguments can they use, and how can they be persuaded themselves that bus policies are worth selling to their constituents? This resource pack is intended to help councillors and council officers tackle these issues. In particular, it aims to draw on good practice in bus priority across the country and pass on information about the benefits of successful schemes.

- 12 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The resource pack contains facts about public transport to help users make the case for bus priority. Some of these facts are also included in Frequently asked questions or FAQs (section 9). Given that typically around one third of the electorate does not have access to a car, it is worth emphasising the importance of bus users to the local economy. Buses allow people without access to a car to get to work, to the shops, or to leisure activities. It may be worth raising awareness of the needs of the less well-off. Information about travel choices and proof of the benefits of bus priority may also help, as can effective marketing and positive reporting of successful schemes. Effective and inclusive consultation is critical, both to gather and disseminate information. Consultation helps to produce better bus schemes and makes the decision-making process more ’transparent’, but it cannot be a substitute for that process. Local authorities should involve councillors and stakeholders as early as possible. Ideally, consultation should include bus operators and users, and people with concerns about bus-related measures at a particular site. It is important to begin with a re-statement of the strategic objectives when each proposal is put forward. Also, early discussion of areas that are causing concern has been proven to help create a sense of ’ownership’ across the community and makes scheme implementation easier.

Operator involvement
It is important to recognise bus operators’ vital contribution to the aims of encouraging people to use buses and increasing social inclusion. Bus operators bring a unique perspective. They deal directly with bus passengers and can provide useful information, including bus usage and other non-commercially sensitive data. Operators need to be involved from the start in the design of effective measures to help buses. There are many instances around the country of local authorities and bus operators working together towards a shared vision for public transport. And yet there are also examples of local authorities introducing bus priority measures, only for the operator to withdraw the service that the priority measures benefited shortly afterwards. Some local authorities have altered traffic management arrangements without telling local bus operators, who then found that their routes became much more congested, or in some cases even severed. It is not uncommon for developers to propose large housing projects with a road layout that is incapable of accommodating buses, even when car parking spaces are deliberately limited. Similarly, it has been known for local authorities not to consult bus operators on proposals to protect residential roads from ’rat running’ traffic, proposals which can displace traffic onto bus routes. None of these circumstances benefit buses, but unfortunately they are not unusual. They are often the result of poor communications between local authorities and bus operators. Most authorities have a public transport liaison committee, or similar entity. But for it to be meaningful, all parties need to be open and honest about their intentions. Effective partnership working requires real operator involvement. This can include regular meetings at different organisational levels, commissioning joint bus priority studies, and implementing joint marketing strategies. But essentially it is about ensuring that buses become an important factor in planning and managing local authority infrastructure. Bus provision should be a priority when local authorities plan

- 13 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

briefs for development or consider traffic management schemes. In turn, operators must see themselves as part of the local community and get involved in partnership working. They can explain and raise awareness of the role of buses through: local strategic partnerships; economic partnerships; business forums; chambers of commerce; and resident and community associations.

Implementation and evaluation process
As a local authority develops a bus priority scheme, it needs to set up a process for getting the maximum benefit for buses. All stakeholders should be involved in identifying problem areas and delay hot spots. A number of authorities have introduced joint inspection meetings (JIMs). At these, representatives of the bus operator, the local authority, the police and any other involved group travel along a bus corridor looking for trouble spots that might affect buses. These locations can then be developed in line with the consultation process. Once a scheme is in place, it must be evaluated. This is so it can be modified if necessary, and so that the local authority can learn lessons for future schemes. Operators are often reluctant to release commercially sensitive data on passenger volumes, so local authorities need to reassure them that they will maintain their confidentiality. But more fundamentally, the operator and the authority need to acknowledge the value of monitoring and evaluation in helping to design better schemes in the future. There is more advice in Performance indicators & monitoring (section 7).

Maintaining the benefits
Route management
Background
The most important aspect of bus priority is that buses are able to use effectively the measures introduced on bus routes. This may seem self evident, but bus operators constantly face the problem of bus priority measures that they cannot physically use. They are prevented from getting the full benefit from them by: illegal parking; traffic queues; unnotified roadworks; and defective road surfaces. Bus priority measures are designed and introduced to help achieve easier and more consistent journey times through congested areas in our towns and cities. This is important to bus passengers, bus operators, other road users and the local community alike.

- 14 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Better reliability is a currently a legal requirement for bus operators enforced by Traffic Commissioners in respect of all local bus services. This legal requirement is that 95 per cent of journeys on a registered service should operate not more than one minute early or five minutes late compared with timings given in registration documents. Better reliability is also a priority for bus users and an important factor in attracting new passengers. Motorists are more likely to transfer to reliable bus services and, the greater the transfer, the less the congestion (and pollution) in urban areas. It is therefore important to maintain bus priority facilities and keep them free from physical obstructions. Buses are especially prone to obstructions, e.g. congestion or roadworks, because they are legally required to stay on route. Maintenance and clearance of the route have a high priority on the rail network and motorways, but sometimes seem to have a lower priority on local roads. There are three main activities on the public highway that can significantly affect the operation of bus routes: enforcement; roadworks; and traffic management. Traffic management issues are addressed separately in the following leaflet entitled Traffic management.

Enforcement
Enforcement is critical to the effectiveness of bus priority measures. For example, bus lanes help protect buses from the worst traffic congestion, helping to make them more reliable and attractive. However, illegal parking or driving in bus lanes can seriously undermine their benefits. That is why they need protecting through enforcement. The problem is that the powers to enforce traffic orders (which make measures such as bus lanes possible) vary throughout the country, so approaches to enforcement are equally varied. Most enforcement is associated with moving vehicles. Moving vehicle offences are usually defined as criminal activities and only the police can enforce them. This is also true of parking offences in areas where decriminalised parking has not been introduced. Police resources are always under pressure, and bus lane enforcement has therefore been infrequent and sporadic.

London’s experience
London was the first area allowed to introduce decriminalised parking and bus lane enforcement. As a result of new powers under the Local Authority Act 1996 (amended in 2000), London boroughs were allowed to enforce parking and bus lanes using parking attendants and cameras. The Act made the offence of driving in a bus lane a civil rather than a criminal offence. This meant that highway authorities (in this case the London boroughs) could issue a penalty charge notice (PCN) to offenders. The penalty charge was set at £80, and recently increased to £100.

- 15 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

In 1999, the Association of London Government (ALG) set up a trial of the new powers with the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Ealing, Newham, Croydon and the Corporation of London. The boroughs used close circuit television (CCTV) cameras operated remotely from secure control centres to monitor selected bus lanes. The Act requires that any offences caught on CCTV should be recorded on a secure format and watched by an operator. It is important to take account of the context of any offence. For example, a driver would not be penalised for entering a bus lane in order to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle. The aim was to make the trial self-funding through the issue of PCNs. The process for issuing a PCN is as follows: the CCTV operator reviews all recorded offences after the bus lane ceases operating for the day; the CCTV operator and a supervisor check each case to make sure an offence has occurred; the CCTV operator obtains registered keeper and vehicle details of each offender from DVLA; the CCTV operator checks the vehicle description against the CCTV image; a PCN should reach the registered keeper within 14 days of the offence; and the Transport Committee for London’s Parking Appeal Service deals with any appeals. The results of the trial were dramatic. Following an initial publicity campaign when enforcement started, the number of PCNs declined significantly, by up to 80 per cent in some areas. Buses were able to travel faster in bus lanes in the trial areas. But there was a limited effect on their overall reliability because the trial areas were small and buses were affected by other factors such as traffic congestion and roadworks. As Transport for London (TfL) sees enforcement as such an integral part of bus priority in London, it has agreed enforcement strategies with each London borough. Under these agreements, the boroughs provide additional parking attendants or cameras along London Bus Initiative (LBI) or BusPlus routes. These bus routes have been subject to ’whole route’ improvements and further details are provided in the LBI leaflet in this resource pack. TfL underwrites all extra costs that cannot be met under PCN income. This gives the boroughs an incentive to achieve full compliance.

South Yorkshire’s experience
Bus operators First and Yorkshire Terrier set up an enforcement trial in Sheffield with South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE). They paid for extra police motorcycle patrols during peak periods and motorists were warned through a media campaign that driving in a bus lane would result in a fixed penalty notice (FPN). The trial ran from April to June 2001. The trial opened with very high levels of FPNs issued: a significantly greater number than for the same period in the previous year. There was clearly a high level of non compliance with motorists perceiving little chance of being caught. However, a very significant reduction took place over the trial period, with 82 per cent fewer tickets issued in June than in April. Importantly, one operator reported that lost mileage fell by 60 per cent overall, with the other reporting a drop of 45 per cent. Lost mileage is defined as scheduled miles minus operating miles. The latter is affected by traffic lost miles (e.g. congestion delays) and operating lost miles (e.g. driver shortage and vehicle breakdown). Both operators also found that they kept to scheduled journey times better and more consistently.

- 16 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The conclusions drawn from the trial were: effective enforcement is essential to bus priority; the initial level of FPNs more than paid for the cost of additional policing, so in theory the trial would have been self-funding. However, as more motorists comply with bus lanes, the rule of diminishing returns applies; enforcement was essential during peak hours, but more enforcement was needed at other times of the day to maintain standards; and enforcement was perceived as fair to all road users. South Yorkshire’s experience has been compiled with the assistance of SYPTE and BOSSY (Bus Operators Serving South Yorkshire). The Local Authority Act 2003 is currently being debated in Parliament and will extend the powers used in London across the whole country. The Department for Transport (DfT) is keen to standardise enforcement following the lessons learnt in London, and has been taking advice from both TfL and the ALG. However, DfT intends to grant individual approval to local authorities that have developed their own parking enforcement regimes and to those that can show they have the correct systems already in place. There is significant interest from metropolitan authorities and highways authorities for large towns and cities in introducing bus lane enforcement in a similar way to London.

Highways works
A common problem appears to be a lack of coordination between highways managers, who are responsible for maintaining the highway, and transport managers, who oversee the running of bus services. Highways managers sometimes schedule maintenance work without informing bus operators, resulting in buses being diverted or even suspended. The same can happen when, for example, gas, water or electricity companies carry out work on the roads, often as an emergency. Highways managers should consult bus operators on the phasing of maintenance works to minimise their effect on services. At worst, some highways managers have created diversion routes that buses cannot use. It has been suggested that highways managers should set up temporary bus priority measures, where reasonable, when roadworks take place so that buses are not delayed. Local authorities must also replace bus priority signing and marking as soon as possible after roadworks take place. It is good practice to monitor and maintain the condition of signing and lining for bus priority measures. If signs are missing or damaged, or lines are indistinct, the opportunity for enforcement is severely reduced. Most authorities produce a Maintenance Plan which sets out relative priorities based on route hierarchy and severity of problem. The importance of bus lane maintenance should be formally recognised in these Maintenance Plans. Some authorities have highway liaison groups, which involve all stakeholders in the process of highway maintenance. These authorities often have fewer operational problems for both public transport and highway maintenance. However, these liaison groups vary significantly between authorities and may be irregular and infrequent. Again, good practice demands regular liaison meetings involving the appropriate

- 17 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

level of staff and with a clear agenda.

Traffic management
Background
The previous leaflet, Route management, considers the effective management and operation of bus routes on a daily basis. This leaflet takes a more long-term, forward planning perspective and considers the relationship between traffic management and bus priority. It is important to think broadly about the relationships between traffic management and bus priority. Traffic management should be carried out in a way which complements a local authority’s wider planning and transport policy objectives, including the delivery of the council’s integrated transport strategy and bus strategy. Such strategies set out high-level policy objectives and targets for modal priorities (with priority given to public transport, walking and cycling); the allocation of road space (through the creation of new road space or the reallocation of existing road space); and demand management initiatives. For example, bus priority measures can be both the ’carrot’ and ’stick’, making a contribution to the better management of congestion and helping towards the provision of faster and more reliable bus services. Fundamentally, in taking decisions about the effective management of traffic in their area, local authorities should consider the needs of all road users, including buses and their passengers. In doing so, local authorities and bus operators should liaise closely, with traffic management issues being high up on the agenda. Effective traffic management underpins bus priority: without this foundation the full benefits of any bus priority measure cannot be realised. Furthermore, good traffic management can assist buses without impeding the general flow of traffic in the area.

Traffic management & buses
For these reasons traffic management, bus operations and bus priority measures need to be considered together, not in isolation. Local authorities should ensure that, as far as is practical, the introduction of traffic management measures does not impede the effectiveness and reliability of local bus services. For example, when local authorities introduce traffic management measures in residential areas to improve road safety and the local environment, they need to consider the implications for bus operations in that area and on nearby bus routes. Traffic management solutions developed without consideration of bus routes have the potential to harm local bus operations. Using road humps for example as a traffic calming measure is an inappropriate solution if the road in question has a bus service operating on it. More ’bus friendly’ traffic calming measures such as chicanes should be considered instead. Furthermore, as well as affecting bus operations in the area being ’calmed’, measures to prevent ’rat running’ on residential streets, for example, can displace traffic back onto nearby bus routes.

- 18 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The impact of such measures on bus routes should be considered, and wherever possible bus priority measures should be introduced to minimise the disruption to bus services. In all circumstances, close liaison with local bus service operators, as well as residents, etc., is essential. In areas where bus services run infrequently and the case for bus priority may be relatively weak, the introduction of well designed traffic management measures can improve the general flow of traffic, which can benefit buses too. This approach may best suit semi-rural areas and small to medium-sized towns, where there is often simply not enough available road space to introduce certain types of bus priority. Improving bus journey times and service reliability for buses through the introduction of good traffic management should be a main aim of a local authority. Relatively simple measures that assist buses more generally such as dispensing with bus laybys, other than at places where the service terminates, and the use of yellow box markings to help buses at key junctions should be considered as part of this. It is of course important to be aware of the risk that improvements in general traffic flow and reduced car journey times could increase the attractiveness of car use and then any benefit to buses could be lost.

On-street waiting & loading
Where local authorities are considering more radical, innovative approaches to the regulation and management of on-street waiting and loading restrictions on key bus routes, consultations need to be held. Key stakeholders that need to be consulted include local traders, delivery and distribution companies, the local chamber of commerce, as well as bus operators. Deliveries in peak hours can raise issues that affect bus routes. Innovative waiting and loading schemes to deal with these issues need positive and effective enforcement. This benefits all road users, including buses. Similarly it is very important for local authorities to liaise closely with bus operators during the design, consultation and implementation of area-wide controlled parking zone (CPZ) schemes. The access requirements of buses operating within areas for which on-street parking controls are being developed need to be carefully considered. In this context, it is important to recognise the potential obstruction that can be caused by ’Blue Badge’ parking, taking advantage of the lesser restrictions afforded by loading restrictions, irrespective of single or double yellow line parking restrictions.

Special initiatives
Edinburgh Greenways
Description of need
Background ’Greenways’ are bus priority lanes, introduced as part of Edinburgh’s transport strategy, Moving Forward. A Traffic Regulation Order bans general traffic from Greenways, restricting access to buses, taxis and cycles. Greenways differ from conventional bus priority in a number of ways:

- 19 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

⢠lanes are surfaced in green tarmac; ⢠red lines prohibit stopping, replacing traditional yellow lines; ⢠a dedicated team of wardens strictly enforces Greenways; ⢠side streets off Greenways have traffic calming measures; ⢠there is better provision for cyclists and pedestrians; ⢠Greenways operate throughout the working day; and ⢠there are better bus shelters with comprehensive bus information. Problems Greenways are an attempt to remedy a problem with traditional bus lanes. Although many were very successful, buses still suffered congestion at a number of junctions that lacked yellow lines to prevent on-street parking activity. Objectives The Greenways scheme aimed to: ⢠improve bus reliability; ⢠reduce bus journey times; ⢠reduce car traffic growth by the year 2000; ⢠reduce car traffic by 30 per cent by the year 2010; and ⢠meet European guidelines on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations in the air by 2000.

Scheme details
Description This study looks at two Greenways corridors. The A8 is 6.7km long and 55 per cent of its length is inbound bus lane, whilst 54 per cent is outbound bus lane. The A900 is 2.2km long and 23 per cent of its length is inbound bus lane, whilst 41 per cent is outbound bus lane. These two Greenways are compared with the A7/A701 corridor, which has conventional bus only lanes on both sides for most its 3km length. Implementation date The two Greenways in the study were introduced in 1999. Costs

- 20 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The scheme cost approximately £500,000/km. This compares with £110,000/km for the traditional bus lane corridor. Consultation The local authority consulted with bus operators, residents and businesses in the core scheme area. Public consultation following experimental introduction of Greenways in 1999 showed strong support. Bus operators Lothian Region Transport and First Edinburgh operate buses along the two Greenways. Bus frequency The bus services run every 12 minutes.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme

Before and after monitoring
Dates of surveys The surveys were carried out in 1999. Types of surveys Types of surveys Results Traffic flows 3 Journey times The surveys showed that, in most cases, both Greenways and conventional lanes protected buses from the congestion that affected other traffic. Greenways that were lined with shops provided better protection from congestion than the equivalent stretch of conventional bus lane. The introduction of Greenways on the A8 corridor seems to have improved bus reliability. The conventional corridor did not show any obvious changes over the same period. Patronage Surveys showed that there was an increase in bus use, with approximately 11 per cent of the sample claiming to use the bus more. However, 7 per cent of interviewees claimed to use the bus less. Hence overall there was a 4 per cent increase in bus use.

- 21 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Other effects of the scheme The count data for both Greenways corridors shows that traffic volumes have decreased slightly. It is not possible to attribute any change in cycle use to Greenways from the data available. Enforcement issues Greenways are constantly patrolled but conventional lanes merely receive ’visits’ and these generally after 08.00. An illegal parker is typically 15 times more likely to encounter a warden on a Greenway than on a conventional bus lane. Possible scheme amendments Greenways design could be improved by avoiding: bus lanes which are carried straight through junctions without any setback; starting bus lanes immediately downstream of junctions as this can result in traffic being unwilling to use the inside lane, which also reduces capacity; and unnecessarily reducing the queuing space available and thus increasing the frequency with which queues block back to upstream junctions, causing more frequent congestion there. This is particularly important at the start of the Greenway where upstream buses have no priority and therefore get caught in the congestion.

Conclusions
The Edinburgh Greenways scheme is successful and has been extended.

References
Scottish Executive CRU, A Comparative Evaluation of Greenways and Conventional Bus Lanes, Report number 83. Obtainable from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfind.aspx?series=9

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the help of the Scottish Executive CRU, City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian Region Transport, and First Edinburgh. For further information contact the City of Edinburgh Council City Development Department on: 0131 469 3630.

Other examples
With regard to other similar bus priority measures recently introduced, there are none directly comparable that have all of the features of Greenways, particularly in terms of the level of enforcement and the use of red lines. However, the London Bus Initiative (now known as Bus Plus) also features high levels of enforcement, albeit under a different legislative regime.

- 22 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Further information
Guidance and further information can be found in the following: DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. Seaman, D & Heggie N, Comparative evaluation of Greenways and bus priority lanes, Traffic Management, Safety and Intelligent Transport Systems. Proceedings of Seminar D at the AET European Transport Conference 1999, Vol. P432 0115-32.

London Bus Initiative
Description of need
Background The London Bus Initiative Phase 1 (LBI1) was a 3 year fixed term initiative established in April 2000 and supported with a £60m grant from Government, as a new partnership approach to improving bus services in the Capital. The partnership drew together the London Bus Priority Network (LBPN) Partnership of all 33 individual London local authorities, Transport for London’s (TfL) Bus Priority Team and London Buses, bus operators and enforcement agencies. This collaborative feature was a strong element of the initiative, which received a Merit commendation from the Institution of Civil Engineers in 2003. The vision for the initiative was "to deliver a step change enhancement of the actual and perceived quality of London’s bus service" with the aim of making travel by bus more attractive and getting more people to use buses. Challenges 27 high frequency bus routes across London were selected for treatment with the specific aim of benefiting the maximum numbers of passengers. Collectively they were identified as Bus Plus routes. The routes served areas where integrated transport services could be provided and where buses offered a competitive alternative to the car. Some routes included heavily congested roads or passed through areas where improved bus transport could assist in regeneration. The LBI Partnership took 12 months to set up, plan and programme the project and a further two years to design, consult and implement. Objectives The LBI had four objectives: ⢠to promote a change in travel habits and get more people onto London’s buses; to deliver improvements on a ’whole route’ basis; to make buses more attractive for potential users; and to make buses the first choice of mode on LBI routes.

- 23 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Constituent parts to the Whole Route approach Constituent parts to the Whole Route approach A key feature of the LBI was the whole journey approach to route improvements comprising ten main elements of a whole route implementation plan. The diagram below shows the constituent parts to the Whole Route approach to route improvement.

Scheme details
Description 27 Bus Routes were selected for LBI Phase 1 and divided into three categories: 3 Quality Whole Routes +; 5 Quality Whole Routes; and 19 Whole Routes. A wide range of measures were introduced across the whole of London with the QWR+ routes receiving the highest levels of bus priority. Over 100 extra bus lanes, 50 new pedestrian crossings, 300 signalised junctions equipped with bus priority and 140 junction improvements were introduced on the 27 routes. The measures had a typical expected first year rate of return (FYRR) of 20 per cent. Over 400km of roads were studied and received bus priority measures. These measures benefited all the Bus Plus routes together with other bus services using these corridors. Improved enforcement was delivered through the installation of bus lane enforcement cameras, both on board the bus and at the roadside (CCTV) as well as the enhancement of borough enforcement programmes. Improved passenger information was provided at bus stops, together with real time passenger information and new bus interior cleaning programmes. For drivers, a BTEC qualification was initiated and up to March 2003, 1,500 drivers had completed this qualification. Implementation The Whole Route Implementation Plans (WRIPs) began in April 2000 with scheme implementation beginning in late 2000 and continuing until the end of March 2003. Costs Enforcement £11m Traffic engineering £28m Bus operations £3.5m Programme support £9m Major projects £8.5m +

- 24 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The total cost of the scheme was approximately £60m. Consultation Consultation was both broad and detailed, including individual schemes. Extensive use was made of the technical press, local radio and newspapers to disseminate information. A computerised simulation illustrating the LBI toolkit was produced on CD to aid consultation. As with many traffic related projects, a number of schemes attracted opposition and some schemes had to be amended or dropped from the programme. Bus operators Transport for London - London Buses, is the public transport provider for London and all bus services are tendered. Major bus operators include the First Group, Arriva and London United.

Before and after monitoring
The three QWR+ routes were studied in detail with comprehensive before and after monitoring undertaken. The graphs below showing the Route 115 compare bus and car journey times before and after the introduction of the LBI measures together with a do-nothing scenario, which assumes a 2 per cent decrease in traffic speeds over the three years. The reliability of the bus route has improved over the three years. The excess waiting times for passengers using the 115 has decreased by over 30 per cent following the introduction of the LBI and service enhancements. The bus and car journey time variability has also considerably improved. The bus priority and complimentary traffic engineering measures have delivered improved reliability and reduced journey times, by an average of 3 per cent throughout the day. Journey times Journey times were reduced on the QWR+ Route 115, but on the two remaining QWR+ routes, the 149 and 185, the 149 journey times increased, and on the 185, there was little change. These changes must be viewed against a general deterioration in operating conditions on these routes and journey speeds would have been much slower had the LBI improvements not been installed. Also a number of pedestrian facilities were introduced and bus stop dwell times increased as additional bus passengers were attracted to the route. R115 bus journey and car journey times Patronage Annual patronage on the 27 Bus Plus LBI routes rose from 165 million annually to 201 million over the life of the project, an increase of 21.9 per cent. This compares with a network wide increase including LBI routes of 18.8 per cent.

- 25 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Potential project enhancements Much was achieved through the LBI and the role and importance of bus services and bus priority measures was raised significantly. However, some factors were not fully anticipated as follows: the wide partnership approach was innovative and was a highly successful basis for building on co-operation. Establishing the partnership was made more difficult as it coincided with TfL’s formation in 2000; the whole route approach to improvements demanded intensive resources dedicated to traffic signal design. Skilled and experienced traffic signal engineers were in high demand and the frequency of maintaining and updating traffic signal junctions requires increased resources. This issue is now is being addressed by TfL through specialist training programmes; and schemes were identified through the Whole Route Implementation Plan (WRIP) process on the basis of need. However, not all schemes were subject to detailed design evaluation. Explicit justification may have helped prioritisation of schemes and better responses to local opposition, although this may have delayed the implementation of some schemes.

Conclusions
The LBI Phase 1 was highly successful and objectives were largely met. Passenger growth on the LBI routes is now at its greatest for over 50 years and TfL is currently investing approximately £50m per annum in bus priority measures across London.

References
DETR, A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone, The Stationery Office, 1998. DETR, From Workhorse to Thoroughbred. A Better Role for Bus Travel, 1999. Greater London Authority, The Mayor’s Transport Strategy, GLA, July 2001.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet is based on documentation provided by Transport for London.

Other examples
There is no direct equivalent of the LBI owing to the unique statutory arrangements prevailing in the Capital. The West Midlands Bus Showcase and Edinburgh Greenways leaflets in this resource pack provide examples of other comprehensive initiatives outside of London.

Further information
Contact the TfL Bus Priority team on: 020 7027 9408 or email: enquiries@streetmanagement.org.uk Alternatively you can write to:

- 26 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus Priority Programme Customer Service Centre 4th Floor 172 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9TN Further information can also be obtained from the web site: http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk

West Midlands Showcase
Description of need
Background The Centro (West Midlands PTE) Twenty Year Public Transport Strategy set out objectives for the delivery of high quality public transport services and facilities across the West Midlands. The West Midlands Bus Strategy and Public Transport Strategy combined to provide a framework for development of an integrated transport system that will continue to be dominated by the bus. The West Midlands Area Multi-Modal Study (WMAMMS, 2001) placed strong emphasis on investment in bus priority to raise the share of peak travel by bus from 20 per cent in 1999 to more than 30 per cent by 2031. Problems Severe peak period traffic congestion is experienced in many parts of the West Midlands. Traffic flows are higher than in any area outside London and there is high growth in traffic and car ownership. It is estimated that congestion costs businesses in the West Midlands £2.5 billion each year. Objectives The West Midlands Bus Showcase concept was developed to deliver a radical improvement to bus services to make them attractive to new users, particularly to motorists, and to retain existing passengers. The objectives of Bus Showcase are: to be more attractive to bus users and potential new users; to improve peak period bus speeds relative to the private car; to improve bus reliability; to reduce bus journey times; and to increase bus patronage. Concept The aim is to develop a Bus Showcase network on strategic routes where demand for bus travel is heavy and there is potential for growth in patronage. The high frequency of service on Showcase routes ensures that passengers can ’turn up and go’ without the need to seek timetable information before travelling. The Bus Showcase network complements local rail and Midland Metro through improved interchange opportunities.

- 27 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Investment in priority and route infrastructure on strategic corridors is complemented by improvements to shelters, information, accessibility and safety in other areas served by Showcase routes. A recent development is the ’core and spurs’ approach. Core corridors have the ’turn up and go’ level of service and the full range of Showcase investment. Spurs are sections of route with a lower frequency of service feeding into main corridors where investment is limited to access, accessibility, waiting environment and information.

The schemes
Key principles The Showcase concept is based on three key principles: Achieving a ’seamless’ journey by addressing the whole journey from home to final destination, including walk stages of the journey and providing passenger information. Effective partnership between highway authorities, Centro, bus operators and police. Comprehensive consultation. Standard features Every completed Showcase corridor will include: accessible and safe pedestrian routes to/from bus stops; low floor buses serving bus stops with accessible kerbing; an attractive waiting environment at bus stops with high quality shelters provided where possible; frequent bus services allowing passengers to ’turn up and go’; bus priority, selective bus detection and other highway measures to improve bus speed and reliability where practical to do so; capability to provide real time information for bus passengers and automatic vehicle location for service management by operators; commitment to service quality including frequent cleaning of buses and customer care training for drivers; and comprehensive enforcement of highway measures. Standards A series of performance standards has been identified for Showcase routes. Some examples are given below: Network access: 100 per cent of built-up areas within 400 metres of a bus stop. Accessibility: 100 per cent stops with easy access kerbs, 100 per cent of buses with low floor. Peak frequency: Maximum interval of six minutes between buses from 07.00 to 20.00. Reliability: Compliance with standards set by the Traffic Commissioner. Journey times: All journey times to be the same as off-peak. Journey speed: A long term target of 95 per cent of car journey speeds in peak periods.

- 28 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Delivery
Partnership A protocol was agreed in advance of implementation of Line 33, the first Showcase route in the West Midlands. More recent Showcase routes have been implemented on the basis of informal agreements. Consultation is taking place on a statutory Quality Bus Partnership for the Route 67 Corridor (Lichfield Road/Tyburn Road) in Birmingham. The parties to the Agreement are the Passenger Transport Authority, Centro, Birmingham City Council, four bus operators and the West Midlands Police Authority. The principal bus operator, Travel West Midands (TWM), supports the concept of statutory partnership agreements provided that there is considerable input from all parties and close monitoring of post-implementation performance standards.

Consultation
Effective consultation is one of the key principles underlying the Bus Showcase concept. The three stages of consultation are: initial consultation on the preliminary design, including options where they are available; local consultation on shelter locations; and further consultation on detailed designs including Traffic Orders and any land acquisition. Consultation methods include use of libraries, local halls, a low floor exhibition bus, road signs displaying a telephone ’hot line’ number, leaflet drops to all affected frontages, leaflets and posters on buses.

Marketing
Comprehensive marketing takes place in advance of the launch day for every new Showcase route. A typical Showcase marketing campaign includes door-to-door delivery of timetable leaflets, advertising in the local press and radio, information on Centro and bus operator web sites and a press release. A marketing budget of approximately £25,000 is recommended. Implementation Line 33 Birmingham to Pheasey was the first Showcase scheme to be introduced in 1997. Birmingham City Council and Centro spent £2.9 million on infrastructure and TWM invested £1.2 million in new buses. Three more routes have been completed at a combined capital cost to local authorities and Centro of £7.4 million, excluding operator contributions in the form of new buses. They are: Primeline 20/40/48/50 Coventry to Bedworth. Superline 171/301 Walsall to Moseley. Route 559/560 Wolverhampton to Bloxwich.

- 29 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

A further five routes have been substantially completed at an estimated cost to local authorities and Centro of £16.3 million to date. TWM has offered a contribution of up to £30 million to supplement public sector funding for bus infrastructure in the West Midlands. By Summer 2003, more than £4 million had been spent or committed. For a project to qualify for a funding contribution there must be a business case showing a benefit to TWM. This means that the project will need to include radical bus priority measures at key congestion ’hot spots’. Enforcement A trial of bus lane enforcement is planned as soon as the expected legislation is in place. Two of the seven districts in the West Midlands already have decriminalised parking powers in place enabling them to make use of the new enforcement powers. Maintenance of standards Maintenance of quality standards is essential for the continued success of each Showcase route. This involves maintenance of road signs and carriageway markings, speedy repair of damage to shelters, frequent cleaning of shelters and the interior and exterior of buses, keeping timetable displays up-to-date, 100 per cent availability of branded buses, and cascading of older buses to lower profile services. Allocation of sufficient revenue funding to maintain quality is an essential part of the process.

Monitoring
Method Comprehensive monitoring takes the form of bus and car journey time surveys, roadside bus reliability surveys, automatic traffic counts and analysis of bus patronage information collected via electronic ticket machines. Bus patronage data must be aggregated to avoid identifying passenger numbers on different services provided by different operators. Surveys of Showcase service users are undertaken to establish impact on travel patterns and views on the service provided. Impact The impact of Bus Showcase on bus patronage and mode share varies between routes. Overall, completed Showcase routes have achieved an increase in bus patronage of between 10 and 30 per cent, and a mode shift of about 5 per cent from private car. The introduction of articulated buses on Route 67 contributed to patronage growth of 29 per cent. The following table provides performance information for Line 33, Superline and Primeline:

- 30 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Line 33 Superline Primeline Percentage change in bus journey times: AM peak inbound PM peak outbound Percentage change in total patronage +28.8 +22.5 13 +10.3 6 -2 -6 +9 +4 +1 -2

Former car users as percentage of patronage 7

Increased bus patronage and increased numbers of mobility impaired passengers has resulted in increased bus boarding times which have the effect of reducing savings in bus journey times.

The future
Future initiatives will include pilot red route projects to keep traffic operating efficiently through better management of parking and loading, consideration of new branding proposals for the whole West Midlands multi-modal public transport network and consideration of some form of bus rapid transit network to provide an intermediate mode between Metro and Showcase.

Conclusions
Bus Showcase has been successful in a number of ways: the image of the bus has been raised, reliability has been improved and there have been significant increases in bus patronage. On average, mode transfer of 5 per cent has been achieved. The greatest impact was achieved when all elements of the Showcase scheme were implemented together.

References
Full information on the Showcase concept is given in the Bus Showcase Handbook published by Centro in 2003. This can be downloaded at: www.centro.org.uk/handbook/index.htm Periodic updates are planned.

Acknowledgements
This case study has been complied with the assistance of Centro, TWM and the West Midlands local authorities.

Other Examples
BusPlus, London Bus Initiative. Contact the TfL Bus Priority team on: 0207 960 6763.

- 31 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Edinburgh Greenways. Contact the Transport Projects Development Manager of the City Development Department at the City of Edinburgh Council on: 0131 469 3630.

Further Information
Further information can be obtained from: Centro Centro House 20 Summer Lane Birmingham B19 3SD 0121 200 2787 http://www.centro.org.uk

Leeds City Centre
Description of need
Background Bus priority measures in Leeds City Centre form part of Leeds City Council’s broader transport strategy for the city centre which comprises four main elements: Leeds Inner Ring Road; ’city centre loop’ provides a high capacity, one-way loop around the city centre designed to efficiently allow motorised traffic to travel around the city centre, with access to the city centre at strategic points; ’public transport box’ sits within the city centre loop around which public transport and cyclists can easily navigate providing good access to the main retail core; and pedestrianised retail core. Problems During the early 1990s Leeds city centre began to face increasing competition from out of town business and shopping centres. At the same time traffic congestion and associated problems were making increasing demands on the limited road space available. These issues led to a fundamental re-think about traffic management, designed to address the traffic problems and at the same time revitalise the city centre environment for its users.

- 32 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Previously, most of the streets forming the box were one way and wide, up to four lanes, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross. The one way traffic system caused confusion for bus passengers as inbound and outbound stops serving the same service were often some distance apart on different streets. On Woodhouse Lane buses were subject to considerable disruption from other traffic, particularly on the inbound direction. Bus stops were regularly obstructed by cars waiting outside a popular supermarket. Also, buses requiring to make a right turn at the junction following the bus stop were required to cut across a heavy traffic stream in a very short distance to access the offside lane. Objectives The objectives of the city centre transport strategy are to: reduce traffic flows through the heart of the city, and thereby provide a more attractive and safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists; ensure that buses, taxis and cycles receive better priority in the core of the city centre; improve air quality in the city centre by reducing the volume of through traffic; create an attractive environment to encourage further retail and commercial development, by extending the pedestrianised zone in the city centre; and improve access to the city centre for disabled people and others with mobility difficulties.

Scheme details
Description The public transport box is a priority route for buses, taxis and cycles, which runs around the pedestrian shopping centre via The Headrow, Vicar Lane, Boar Lane and Park Row. Cars and delivery vehicles can use the individual sections of the box to get to car parks or businesses, but cannot travel around or go from one section to another. At key points bus gates allow only buses, taxis and cycles through. The city council has introduced Traffic Regulation Orders making it illegal for unauthorised vehicles (private cars) to drive through the bus gates. Special blue traffic signs and contrasting red road surfacing differentiate bus gates. Key features of the scheme include: a nearside bus gateway on West Gate which enables buses to go straight ahead whilst offside general traffic turn left onto the city centre loop; a bus gateway on New Market Street; a bus gateway on Vicar Lane at the junction with Eastgate; a bus gateway at the Duncan Street/New Market Street junction providing buses with an unimpeded right turn; and improved circulation and control of traffic through Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC). Since road space on the public transport box is so intensively used, buses can be seriously disrupted by the violation of traffic and parking restrictions, therefore, continual enforcement of the measures is essential to ensure smooth running of traffic.

- 33 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

In addition to the public transport box, a series of seven key public transport gateways were identified as critical to providing a link between the main radial roads and the public transport box. Four of these schemes have been implemented to date. The A660 Woodhouse Lane route to the north of the city was the first to be completed and is a typical example of the combination of measures used, although it employs the innovative use of a centre of carriageway bus boarding point which is unique in Leeds. Centre of carriageway bus boarding point Woodhouse Lane Centre of carriageway bus boarding point Woodhouse Lane The proposed Supertram would run along three sides of the public transport box. The future implementation of Supertram was taken into account in the design of the public transport box to minimise future disruptions. Implementation date The city centre loop and public transport box were completed in 1997. Changes were made to the operation of Park Row, which forms the western vertical side of the public transport box, in May 2000. Costs The total cost of the Public Transport Box was £1.5 million. The cost of the Woodhouse Lane Gateway including traffic management measures along the 1km route was £1.2million. Consultation Public consultation on the measures was undertaken as part of the consultation exercise leading to the publication of the City Transport Strategy in 1991 by a steering group involving, West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority, West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, Leeds City Council, Leeds Development Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce. Changes to traffic priorities and the closure of streets to traffic were achieved using conventional Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) issued by the city council. As part of the process of implementing the TROs the city council’s City Management Team consulted businesses in the city centre. Bus operators The majority of services using the public transport box are operated by First Leeds, however, other services include those operated by Arriva, Black Prince Coaches, Keithley and District, Yorkshire Coastliner, Yorkshire Traction and Harrogate & District Travel. Bus frequency There are approximately the following numbers of buses per hour in each direction on each of the sides of the public transport box:

- 34 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

80 buses per hour on the northern side along The Headrow; 65 buses per hour on the eastern side along Vicar Lane; 90 buses per hour on the southern side along Boar Lane; and 40 buses per hour on the western side along Park Road. The A660 Woodhouse Lane gateway is used by 40 to 50 buses per hour in each direction.

Illustration of scheme
Bus priority measures in Leeds City Centre Bus priority measures in Leeds City Centre

Before and after monitoring
Extensive peak period traffic counts were undertaken in 1990 at key city centre junctions prior to construction of the first phase of the public transport box. These were repeated in 2001 to provide an indication of progress and to determine a new city centre base against which future traffic changes will be assessed. (These latter counts included separate counts of taxis and private hire vehicles for which access restrictions to the Loop have been relaxed). In addition, there is a permanent air quality monitoring station located on New Market Street which was in place prior to the changes to traffic circulation in the city centre. It is the intention of Leeds City Council to continue to monitor the impact of the strategy on the city centre. This will include surveys to determine the public response to the continuing efforts to improve the city centre environment for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

Results
Air quality Since the public transport box was introduced monitoring has recorded a general trend of improvements in air quality (NO2, PM10), part of which can be attributed to the success of the traffic management measures reducing the amount of extraneous traffic within the inner ring road and enforcement in keeping traffic moving efficiently. Journey times Monitoring of the Woodhouse Lane gateway has shown that inbound buses saved between 10 and 30 per cent on previous journey times. In the outbound direction, the revised signal arrangements have compensated for the removal of the previous bus lane without any detriment to journey times. Traffic flows The immediate measurable impact of the city centre loop and public transport box was the removal of traffic from the major city centre streets as shown in the table below.

- 35 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Location

Cars & Taxis (Buses) AM Peak 08.00-09.00 1990 2001 51 (73) 0 (0) 160 (130)

Park Row 1500 (70) Briggate 810 (123)

Vicar Lane 1650 (156)

Examination of the city centre counts in conjunction with counts across a regular river bridge screenline indicate that the traffic removed from the centre has been ’absorbed’ on the network with no significant problems arising elsewhere. Accidents Before the construction of the city centre loop and public transport box there were typically 173 personal road injury accidents per year in the city centre. This has dropped to an average of 150 per year following the introduction of the city centre loop and public transport box. The most significant reduction in casualty numbers has been to pedestrians where the annual total has fallen from 97 to 70 per year, a reduction of 28 per cent.

Conclusions
Reallocating road space has been crucial to many of the commercial developments which have contributed to the growth and the revitalisation of the city centre (Leeds central shopping area was ranked 3rd in the UK in 2003). The improvements have therefore contributed to wider social and economic objectives through the increased attractiveness of Leeds as a retail and business centre. The reduction of traffic in and around the city centre has produced a more pleasant environment for pedestrians and cyclists. The city centre measures have included a mix of established traffic management measures and innovation to make better use of road space. Therefore, the most important lesson to be learnt from these projects is that measures have to be designed around local conditions. The full benefits of the city centre loop and public transport box will not be finally realised until Leeds Inner Ring Road Stage 7, the final element of the original 1990 city centre traffic management strategy, is completed. This will remove further extraneous traffic from the city centre. The road space reallocation benefits will become fully apparent once the Leeds Supertram is introduced into the city centre.

Acknowledgements
This case study was produced with the assistance of Leeds City Council and Metro (West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive) and First Leeds. Further Information on the Leeds city centre bus priority measures can be obtained from: Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department The Leonardo Building, 2 Rossington Street,

- 36 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Leeds, LS2 8HB 0113 2477500 http://www.leeds.gov.uk

Other examples
The concept of the city centre loop and public transport box is unique. The priority bus gates were individually designed to suit the particular situations drawing on standard bus priority measures. However, there are good examples of priority bus gates in Wolverhampton City Centre.

Further information
Further information can be found in "Reallocating road space to buses and high occupancy vehicles in Leeds, Hall, A. W." published in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer 145, March 2001, Issue 1.

Oxford, Historic City
Description of need
Background In the 1970s Oxford rejected road building as the answer to the problem of increased demand for travel due to the unacceptable environmental and property impacts and a desire to preserve the nature of the city. Instead the Balanced Transport Policy was developed, made up of a number of elements including park and ride schemes, parking controls, pedestrianisation and bus priority on the main radial routes into the city and city centre. Twenty years later in 1993 the Oxford Transport Strategy (OTS) was developed as a continuation of the Balanced Transport Policy initiated in the early 1970s. This was also a response to pedestrian/bus conflicts in the city centre shopping streets. Again enhanced park and ride remained central to the strategy. In association with this it was proposed to establish a bus priority route, enhance parking controls in the city centre and discourage through traffic by introducing bus gates and restricting the use of more streets through pedestrianisation, buses only and bus and access only in the city centre during the daytime. Oxford is a regional centre for employment, shopping and entertainment serving a population of half a million people as well as home to a large educational economy. The city is also a major tourist destination attracting approximately two million visits each year. The historic road structure in the city centre, combined with the increased demand for travel, puts enormous pressure on the road and public transport networks. The adopted transport strategy allows the consequent considerable travel demands to be successfully accommodated on a largely medieval road network, whilst protecting the historic environment and supporting Oxford’s economy. Objectives

- 37 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The Oxford Transport Strategy aimed to produce a step change in travel to and through the city centre, in order to release space for buses diverted from the pedestrianised Cornmarket Street. By reducing the level of private car traffic in the city it was hoped that conditions would improve for more sustainable modes including walking and cycling. It was also hoped that the continued development of bus priority and traffic management schemes would stop traffic transferring to alternative routes in other parts of the city without increasing congestion or adding to environmental degradation.

Scheme details
Description Before the city centre changes, allowing the pedestrainisation of the main shopping street and the daytime exclusion of through traffic, were introduced a package of accommodation measures were put in place. These were aimed at encouraging further modal shift to more sustainable modes and accommodating traffic routes changes. The works included a series of bus gates creating bus and pedestrian zones on Queen Street and Broad Street, the full pedestrianisation of Cornmarket Street and areas that can be used only by buses and access vehicles on High Street, Park End Street and Norfolk Street. Access restrictions apply 07.30 - 18.30 (10.00 - 18.00 on George Street). There have been improvements to the railway station forecourt and its approach including a segregated bus stopping area and signal controlled access to the station. The improvements to radial routes included junction improvements to assist buses in entering the main flow of traffic. One example is on Woodstock Road, where park and ride buses leaving the Pear Tree park and ride site use a with-flow bus lane and a signal controlled bus gate to give buses priority over other traffic when entering the main carriageway. Improvements were also made at the signalised junction to the Redbridge park and ride site on Abingdon Road and on Botley Road to assist buses from the Seacourt park and ride. Oxford City Centre bus priority measures Oxford City Centre bus priority measures The Oxford Transport Strategy also involves the use of SCOOT traffic signal controls to give buses priority at signalised junctions. This measure has not fulfilled its full potential as the network is close to capacity for much for the time and therefore it has not been possible to give a substantial benefit to buses. Oxfordshire County Council pioneered working in partnership with the Highways Agency to introduce bus lanes on trunk roads between Thornhill and Pear Tree park and ride sites and the ring road. Cost The cost of the strategy measures implemented in the 1990s is estimated at £23 million. This included a package of measures such as bus lane extensions, pedestrianisation, traffic management and capacity enhancements. However, park and ride facilities are not included in this total. Bus operators

- 38 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Oxford is in the unusual position of having two strongly competitive bus companies with local operations of similar size. The Oxford Bus Company and Stagecoach in Oxfordshire match each other service for service on most routes in the city. This has contributed to a spiral of success in terms of the quality of service and vehicles provided in the city. It is also reflected in the high frequency of services running in evenings and on Sundays, creating an environment where public transport is an attractive option for most journey purposes. For example, services combine to give a headway of four minutes between buses on Cowley Road on Sunday mornings. This gives the population confidence in public transport as an alternative to private car. The Oxford Bus Company plans to introduce smartcards during autumn 2004. It is hoped this will improve reliability and halve the average boarding time on their services, which currently stands at eight seconds per passenger. Another initiative used in Oxford is route branding, with schemes such as the Brookes Bus, funded by Oxford Brookes University, linking campuses and the city centre. This group of services was introduced primarily for students, but they are well used by members of the public as well.

Before and after monitoring
Monitoring of traffic levels within the city has been underway since the first wave of bus priority in the 1970s. This monitoring was further developed to assess the impacts of the Oxford Transport Strategy, looking not just at traffic flows but at other transport indicators such as air quality, journey times and modal shift: Automatic traffic counters are used to monitor traffic flows and are positioned around the city centre and just inside the ring road to give continuous data. Surveys of bus journey times were carried out between October and November 1999 and the results compared with similar surveys in the previous year. Both of the main bus operators collect information on passenger numbers. Modal shift is analysed through annual classified surveys - the 1991 survey is used to give a picture of Oxford before the Oxford Transport Strategy programme started. The air quality review was developed through European Union funding of a project called Environmental Monitoring of Integrated Transport Strategies which aims to monitor air quality changes associated with changes in traffic levels. This examined amongst other things level of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide.

Results
Traffic flows Cordon counts into the central area show that there has been no increase in traffic flows entering the city centre since the early 1970s. A reduction in traffic flow by an average of 18 per cent was measured between 1999 and 2002. The eastern radial corridors experienced the greatest impact with a reduction of 30 per cent over Magdalen Bridge (on the eastern approach to the city), whilst the southern radials were least affected with a reduction of only 9 per cent.

- 39 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The level of traffic on High Street after the bus gate was introduced reduced by 60 per cent between 1999 and 2002 (12 hour average weekday). Some routes have experienced an increase in traffic as vehicles are displaced from the central city streets. For example, Marston Ferry Road (north of Oxford centre) experienced a 12 per cent increase and Donnington Bridge (south east of Oxford centre) experienced an increase in the range 10 - 16 per cent in the year following implementation. Journey times On a two km stretch of bus lane introduced in 1997 from Kidlington to Summertown, journey times were halved from eight minutes to four minutes. Abingdon Road also experienced a reduction, with journey times being halved on the section from the ring road to the bus gate. Bus patronage Bus patronage has increased annually by 8-9 per cent since 1999. The modal share has also show a move from the use of private car towards bus. Comparison of modal split between 1991 and 2002 Mode 1991 2002 39 44 17

Car Use 54 Bus Use 27 Other 19

Source: Oxfordshire County Council Air quality There has been a 75 per cent reduction in the levels of carbon monoxide at St Aldates and a 20 per cent reduction in particulate matter on Cornmarket Street. The majority of air monitoring sites in the city show a reduction in the level of nitrogen dioxide.

Conclusions
Bus priority measures in Oxford have been effective as part of a package of measures including pedestrianisation of central areas and park and ride to create a modal shift from private car to public transport. Unlike many areas of the country, bus patronage has increased steadily with an 80 per cent increase between 1985 and 1998, in fact Oxfordshire has the second highest rate of bus use of the shire counties and is one of the least car dependent cities in the country. The lengthy experience of bus priority in the city has created an environment of acceptance of priority measures as part of the infrastructure of the city.

- 40 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The city has a strong pro cycling image which has been reinforced by the reduction in traffic on central streets, as cyclists feel safer and more confident.

The future
Since implementation of the first bus priority schemes in the 1970s, the city has experienced considerable change in travel patterns, partly reflecting the growth of towns and villages elsewhere in Oxfordshire. Given continual change, a number of corridors including Woodstock Road and Banbury Road are being reviewed to assess the scope for strengthening bus priority. In particular, there is a need to determine whether inbound or outbound bus priority will yield the greater benefit in locations where the carriageway is only wide enough to allow a bus lane to be introduced in one direction. There is increasing abuse of bus lanes and bus gates by moving vehicles. Advantage will be taken of legislation to enable camera enforcement of bus lanes and bus gates. Over the next ten years Oxfordshire County Council is planning to development a Premium Routes Network to give buses priority and enhanced frequency on links between urban centres. There is also a proposal for a Guided Transit Express scheme to serve the Redbridge and Pear Tree park and ride sites, with possible extensions to Heyford Hill, Headington and along the A40 corridor to Witney.

References
Director of Environmental Services, Oxford Transport Strategy Working Party - 27 October 2000: Review of impact of the central area changes, October 2000. Oxford City Council Transport in Oxford, Topic paper, December 2003. Oxfordshire County Council Best Practice Guides, January 2003. R Williams, Oxford’s park and ride system, Municipal Engineer 133 (p127-135), September 1999.

Acknowledgements
This document was produced with the assistance of Oxfordshire County Council, Oxford Bus Company and Stagecoach in Oxfordshire. Further information on bus priority measures in Oxford can be obtained from: Oxfordshire County Council, Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford ON1 1NE. The Environment and Economy Department can be contacted on:

- 41 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

01865 815700 or visit http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk. Other examples York Contact the main switchboard on: 01904 613161 Winchester Contact the main switchboard on: 01962 840222

Further information
Oxfordshire County Council Best Practice Guide No 3 Urban Bus priority is available from Oxfordshire County Council at the above address.

Newport, Smaller Towns
Description of need
Background Newport, in South Wales, is the main hub of the regional bus network, with the majority of inter-urban services commencing/terminating at its bus station. Traffic levels in Newport have increased by 22% between 1990 and 2000; these are exacerbated by the riverside location of Newport, which restricts east-west traffic to three main crossing points. Market research, undertaken by the TIGER (Transport Integration in the Gwent Economic Region) Consortium in 2000, recorded that 97% of respondents rated bus service reliability as either ’important’ or ’very important’. A draft feasibility study, completed in March 2000, identified a number of locations where bus priority measures could increase bus service reliability. Phase 1 - Between Chepstow Road /Harrow Road and Old Green Roundabout was the main scheme and subject to the most comprehensive monitoring. Problems Rising congestion levels had increased bus journey times, and reduced the predictability of bus arrival times. This led to a decline in patronage levels with an associated increase in car use, which was economically and environmentally unsustainable. Objectives The primary aims of the Newport bus priority scheme were ’to reduce journey times and improve the reliability of bus services on the main corridors radiating from Newport city centre, by creating a highway infrastructure designed to give priority to buses’.

- 42 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The secondary aims of the scheme are to increase bus patronage and reduce dependence on the private car.

Scheme details
Phase 1: Between Chepstow Road/Harrow Road and Old Green Roundabout Description A number of measures were carried out to improve bus priority as part of Phase 1: ⢠Installation of westbound bus, cycle, motorbike and taxi lanes totalling 550 metres in length, operational between 07:00 and 19:00; ⢠Relocation of existing eastbound bus stop at Crown Buildings to dedicated bus bay; ⢠Town Bridge carriageway converted from substandard 4-lane carriageway to three standard lanes with an eastbound bus lane; and ⢠New traffic signals operated under MOVA (Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation) control designed to minimise the impact on the Cenotaph. Implementation date Works began in September 2001 and were completed in December 2001. Costs The Welsh Assembly supported the scheme through the Transport Grant funding. The total cost for Phase 1 and Phase 2 was £550,000. Consultation Consultation consisted of the following elements: Public Consultation Exhibition (details per sample leaflet), advertised by press release, posters in shops, libraries and buses. Additional leaflet drop to all businesses/residents, whose property fronts the scheme. Publication of Statutory public notices detailing proposed Traffic Regulation Order; Bus operators and frequencies During core hours (08:00 to 18:00) an average of 33 buses per hour utilise the Clarence Place/Town Bridge section as detailed below: Newport Transport operate 11 routes in this corridor, linking the east of the town with the town centre. Stagecoach in South Wales operate three inter urban routes on this corridor, linking Newport with Magor, Caldicot, Caerwent, Chepstow and Gloucester.

- 43 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Drakes Travel operate evening services for one route on the Newport to Chepstow Corridor. Welcome Travel operate a single return journey between Caerwent and Newport.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme

Before and after monitoring
Reliability A series of surveys were undertaken to assess the impact of the bus corridor improvements on the reliability of services. Dates and types of survey Before and after surveys were undertaken at Newport Bus Station on two days (Tuesday and Friday) enabling a statistically robust sample size to be achieved, reflecting variability between reliability levels on different days of the week. Samples were recorded between 07:00 and 19:00 to ensure that the majority of services were recorded and that the effect of variations that occurred throughout the day were minimised. Following collection of the data, the recorded arrival time for each service was compared to the scheduled arrival time and variations recorded. Analysis and results The Traffic Commissioners’ standards are that 95% of services should arrive no earlier than one minute or later than five minutes compared with the registered timetable. The data was analysed to determine the percentage of services that were more than five minutes late. In addition data was also analysed to provide an indication of the average length of time services arrived after the scheduled arrival time. The impact of measures is likely to be greater on local services than inter-urban routes, as the priority measures account for a greater proportion of the local service journey length. To reflect this pattern, analysis was split between urban and inter-urban routes. Tables 1 and 2 show before and after monitoring information for services using Chepstow Road. Tables 1 and 2 show before and after monitoring information for services using Chepstow Road Conclusions In overall terms, the reliability of Chepstow Road services entering Newport bus station has increased. The percentage of services that met the Traffic Commissioner’s criterion has increased from 76% to 87%. In addition, the average lateness for all services has reduced by 31 seconds.

- 44 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Newport urban services have demonstrated an improvement in reliability, with 95% of the sample entering the bus station within the Traffic Commissioner’s criterion. The quality of service has also improved, with average lateness reducing by 45 seconds. For inter-urban services there is a 10% improvement in services arriving within the Traffic Commissioner’s criterion. The greatest benefit has been a reduction in average lateness by 2 minutes and 49 seconds. This is extremely significant as the average lateness now falls within the target set by the Traffic Commissioner. While the scheme may only impact on the final stage of inter-urban services, this section is often the most important for passengers, as it can be extremely frustrating to complete the majority of your journey, only to be delayed by congestion at the end. In conclusion the scheme has resulted in a positive impact on reliability of bus services. Bus patronage monitoring Changes in the level of bus patronage provide a valuable measure of the impact of this scheme on travel habits. To determine the impact of this scheme on travel habits, Electronic Ticket Machine (ETM) data was collected from the main regional bus operators before and after the works. Dates and types of survey Annual surveys are undertaken to determine the number of passenger journeys completed on each sample route, over a 31-day sample period. Data collection commences on the Sunday nearest the 1st October of each sample year, to ensure collection of an equal number of peak and off-peak days. Analysis and results To maintain operational confidentiality, results are recorded on an index, which illustrates relative trends in travel, without determining the performance of an individual route or operator. Analysis was undertaken on both local and inter urban services which utilise the scheme measures on their route. Table 3: Scheme impact on bus patronage Before After % Difference Total 100 106.2 6.2%

The rise in patronage, as shown in Table 3, demonstrates the positive impact of the scheme in promoting increased bus use. The increase in patronage has been achieved against a historical trend of declining bus patronage (Since 1996/97, bus patronage levels in South Wales have declined by nearly 11%).

- 45 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Analysis of TIGER Package A - (Ebbw Vale/Brynmawr to Newport and Chepstow bus corridor improvement scheme) indicated that on this corridor as a whole, patronage on inter-urban bus services had increased by 2.85% between 2000 (pre-scheme) and 2001 (post-scheme), compared to a 4.16% decline in patronage in the region as a whole over the same period.

Conclusions
The increase in patronage by over 6% indicates the added value of the scheme in promoting additional travel on local services. Operators’ comments One of the main aims of the scheme is to enable the bus operators to provide reliable services that can be seen as a viable alternative to the private car. While the data-monitoring programme has been designed to analyse the various impacts of the scheme (such as journey time and reliability), these only provide a snapshot of the impact during the sample period. By contrast operational experience has been gained on a daily basis, therefore the importance of this method of monitoring cannot be over emphasised. The impact of the scheme on their bus services will vary between operators, depending on their service patterns. For example the greatest impact was anticipated to be on Newport Transport services, given that they operate a number of high frequency bus services, with the scheme accounting of a quarter of the route length. By contrast Stagecoach services are long distance, with a lower frequency, of which the scheme will only account for a low percentage of the total route length, albeit this section has experienced the greatest delays with a detrimental effect on operational reliability. Analysis and results To assess the impact, interviews were held with the managers of each of the three main bus-operating companies. These identified a number of common benefits and issues. The positive impact of the scheme is summarised with the following quote from the major regional operator in respect of bus priority measures currently being planned on Malpas Road: ’We support any measures to give buses priority at a time when the general trend is for increasing bus journey times due to ever increasing congestion and on street parking. I sincerely hope that any pressure to reduce the benefits of these proposals are resisted and that the good work already achieved elsewhere in Newport (on Chepstow Road) can also be applied in this area’. The main benefits of the various bus priority measures identified by the operators are: Increased journey time reliability; Reduction of lost/cancelled service; More efficient fleet utilisation; Reduced journey times through the ability to by-pass congestion; Service enhancements increased frequency without additional vehicles; More effective route planning;

- 46 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Increased operational efficiency; Increased customer satisfaction; Improved working environment for driver aiding recruitment and retention; and Publicity benefits. One of the main benefits identified by operators is the ability to run a reliable service. In particular, the reduction of journey times along the scheme enables companies to make up time ’lost’ along more congested sections of the route. This provides benefits to passengers as the increased stability of the network results in fewer services being cancelled or rescheduled at short notice. This also enables services to operate consistently within the guidelines set by the Traffic Commissioner. Despite concerns about enforcement, negative publicity and congestion on untreated sections of the route negating scheme benefits, the bus priority scheme has provided a range of benefits to the operators, which enable service enhancements to the travelling public, encouraging increased bus use.

Acknowledgements
This was produced with the assistance of Newport City Council and Capita Symonds.

Further information
Further information on this special initiative can be obtained from: Glyn Stickler, Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, NP9 4UR http://www.newport.gov.uk

Other examples
In addition to this scheme there are two further schemes in the Newport area: A48 Cardiff Road Bus priority measures: Physical work completed, however re-phasing of traffic lights ongoing to optimise traffic flows. In addition, on going construction of Newport Strategic Distributor Road, has resulted in traffic diverting along Cardiff road, preventing accurate scheme monitoring. Malpas Road Bus Priority measures: Physical work on Malpas Road was completed in June 2004 and is now fully operational. Newport Intelligent Traffic Signals: Implementation of traffic signal priority for buses through transponder activation. Transport Grant funding application approved by Welsh Assembly Government. Work due to commence in next financial year.

West Bromwich Town Centre
Description of need
Background

- 47 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

During 2001 a new traffic management scheme was introduced in West Bromwich to tackle traffic congestion, discourage through traffic and improve conditions for buses and pedestrians. The scheme included several bus priority measures. In 2002 a new bus station was introduced to provide increased capacity, improve accessibility and enhance interchange with Midland Metro. A vision to regenerate the town centre emerged from a master planning exercise. The main elements of the transport strategy were conversion of the West Bromwich Ringway from a one-way gyratory to a two-way carriageway with bus priority and a bus gate to discourage through traffic, reduce peak period congestion, allow all cross-town bus services to call at the bus station and improve conditions for pedestrians. Relocation of the bus station released land to accommodate a new town square and a centre linking art and the creative use of technology. Midland Metro Line 1 was opened in 1999 and passes to the south of West Bromwich town centre. One objective of the strategy was to encourage use of Midland Metro by discouraging through traffic in West Bromwich town centre. It was hoped that this would also be of benefit to Showcase Route 404 (Walsall West Bromwich - Blackheath). Problems The West Bromwich Ringway acted as a large gyratory system carrying all traffic around the town centre in a clockwise direction. Buses were delayed in peak period traffic congestion on the Ringway and the roads approaching junctions on the Ringway. In free-flow conditions traffic speeds were high. Pedestrians relied on unattractive subways to cross the Ringway to the retail core and bus station. The old bus station was not fully accessible, did not present an attractive environment and lacked capacity. Not all bus services could use the old bus station - cross-town services routed via High Street on both sides of the town centre did not call to avoid the need to make a complete circuit of the Ringway before resuming their route. The old bus station was remote from the West Bromwich Central tram stop and therefore did not cater for bus/tram interchange. West Bromwich Town Centre West Bromwich Town Centre Objectives The Transport Strategy for the town centre included the following objectives: Moving the Bus Station to a site closer to the Midland Metro tram stop to encourage bus/tram interchange; Ensuring that all bus services could use call at the new Bus Station without the need to follow circuitous routes; Removing bus stops on the Ringway thereby reducing the need for bus users to cross the Ringway; Providing priority for buses, taxis and cyclists on the Ringway; Providing an element of traffic restraint by discouraging through traffic; Imposing parking charges in the town centre; and Improving safety and the environment for pedestrians by replacing subways under the Ringway with traffic signal controlled crossings.

- 48 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Scheme details
Description West Bromwich Ringway was converted from a one-way gyratory to a two-way road. Traffic signal control with SCOOT was implemented at all main junctions on the Ringway. It was anticipated that the number of traffic signal installations on the Ringway would help to discourage through traffic. A new bus station was built on the south side of the retail core, releasing the site of the former bus station for other uses. A bus gate was provided on the western side of the Ringway to improve conditions for buses and pedestrians, and to reduce the level of traffic using the western side of the Ringway. An inbound with-flow bus lane was provided on High Street to give priority to buses, taxis and cyclists. Traffic signal control was provided at the new bus station entry/exit on the south side of the Ringway, a buses only right turn lane was provided to assist westbound buses enter the bus station, and a surface pedestrian route was provided to West Bromwich Central tram stop with a traffic signal crossing of the Ringway. Traffic calming works were undertaken in a number of streets to prevent traffic avoiding the Ringway by using alternative routes around the town centre. The new West Bromwich bus station has 22 stands and is capable of handling up to 220 departures an hour. It is fully accessible with raised kerbs at all stands; there is a fully enclosed passenger area with bus-operated doors at all stands; and it includes CCTV surveillance and electronic passenger information displays. Implementation date West Bromwich Ringway was converted from a one-way gyratory to two-way carriageway in August 2001. The with-flow bus lane on High Street, the bus gate on New Street, the buses only right turn on Cronehills Linkway and side road traffic calming were all introduced at this time. The new bus station opened in April 2002. Costs The main element of the funding package was a major Local Transport Plan bid submitted to government jointly by Sandwell Council and Centro. The total cost of the project was £11.3 million of which the new bus station accounted nearly 50 per cent. Planning context and consultation The master plan for West Bromwich town centre was subjected to public consultation during May and June 1998. The strategy for traffic management and public transport was an integral part of the master plan. Consultation took the form of a public exhibition in the Queen Square retail area of the town centre, written consultation with all town centre businesses and distribution of 10,000 explanatory leaflets. The master plan was adopted as an Interim Planning Statement in 1999 and now forms part of the Sandwell Unitary Development Plan Review adopted by the Borough Council in April 2004.

- 49 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Further consultation focusing on the proposals for traffic management and public transport took place in 1999 and included written consultation with all town centre businesses and discussions with the owners of properties affected by the scheme. There was also a statutory process of consultation associated with a Compulsory Purchase Order and Traffic Regulation Orders. Bus operators Travel West Midlands is the principal bus operator serving West Bromwich. The only other operator of substantial size is Pete’s Travel. Both companies operate buses on Showcase Route 404 linking Walsall and West Bromwich. Bus frequency During a typical weekday inter-peak hour there are 141 departures from West Bromwich bus station, 27 inbound buses using the bus lane on High Street and a two-way total of 124 buses using the bus gate on New Street.

Before and after monitoring
Dates and type of surveys A biennial roadside cordon survey is undertaken at locations on all approaches to West Bromwich town centre as part of the Local Transport Plan monitoring process. Public transport counts are taken at the same time. Data collection takes place in late March each year. Data for the year 2000 represents the before situation and precedes the commencement of works. Data collected in 2002 represents the situation after completion of the traffic management and bus priority measures. The new bus station was not opened until April 2002, after completion of the 2002 surveys. Type of surveys Three types of information were collected: ⢠Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data was collected on all approaches to the town centre. Manual classified counts were carried out at four of the survey sites to provide assessments of modal split and vehicle occupancy. A bus cordon survey provided counts of bus passenger numbers.

Results
In comparing ’before and after’ traffic and public transport data for West Bromwich it is necessary to be aware that Midland Metro Line 1 opened in May 1999 and patronage continued to build up in the period 2000-2002. This makes it difficult to isolate the impact of the changes to the West Bromwich Ringway and the accompanying bus priority measures. The key findings of a comparison of data for 2000 and 2002 are summarised below:

- 50 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The number of car trips crossing the cordon around West Bromwich town centre has decreased. The mode share accounted for by public transport has increased and now accounts for 32.2% of all trips in West Bromwich. Table 1 shows the reduction in the number of vehicles crossing the town centre cordon during different periods of the day. Some substantial reductions were recorded between 2000 and 2002 - 16 per cent in the morning peak period, 12.5 per cent in the afternoon peak period and 12.5 per cent in a 12 hour day (07.00 - 19.00). Table 1 shows the reduction in the number of vehicles crossing the town centre cordon during different periods of the day Implementation of the scheme provides a number of benefits for bus operators: it establishes an interchange that can be served by all bus services and the location of the new bus station catered for bus/tram interchange. The time savings from reduced peak period traffic congestion and avoidance of the need for circuitous routes around the Ringway were used to improve reliability rather than to reduce scheduled journey times. Monitoring data indicates an increase in the annual number of bus passengers using West Bromwich bus station from 5.83 million before the scheme to a current level of 6.27 million representing an increase of 7 per cent. It is estimated that opening of the new bus station resulted in a 1 per cent transfer from car to bus equating to an annual reduction of 62,600 car trips. Table 2 shows the change in mode share crossing the West Bromwich town centre cordon in the period 1998 - 2002. Table 2 shows the change in mode share crossing the West Bromwich town centre cordon in the period 1998 - 2002 Future developments A Tesco-led retail development on the north side of the town centre will result in diversion of the Ringway to the north of the proposed development. This will enable realisation of the ’town square’ concept with better operating conditions for buses and further improvement to the environment for pedestrians. All traffic signal installations in the Ringway are under SCOOT control and the controllers are set up for selective vehicle detection using GPS technology. This system will be activated once equipment is fitted to buses operating on services in the area. The Council intends to take advantage of the expected legislation permitting the use of cameras for the detection of moving vehicle infringements of bus lanes and the New Street bus gate in order to control increasing abuse by general traffic.

- 51 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Conclusions
The reduction in traffic crossing the West Bromwich town centre cordon between 2000 and 2002 suggests that there has been a reduction in through traffic resulting from the restraint imposed by the New Street bus gate and the number of sets of traffic signals to be passed on the Ringway. The future introduction of selective bus detection and the ability to use camera enforcement should make the bus priority measures more effective. Relocation of the bus station, the introduction of two-way traffic on the Ringway and the provision of a with-flow bus lane on High Street permitted the concentration of all bus services in the bus station improving access to the retail core and encouraging bus/tram interchange.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, Centro and Travel West Midlands. Other examples Leeds city centre Further information from Leeds City Council (or see the case study in this resource pack) Wolverhampton (use of bus gates in city centre) Wolverhampton City Council Regeneration & Transportation Heatun House Salop Street Wolverhampton WV3 0SQ 01902 555745 http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk

Further information
Further information on the West Bromwich scheme can be obtained from:

- 52 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Department of Planning and Development Services Development House Lombard Street West Bromwich B70 8RU 0121 569 4136 http://www.sandwell.gov.uk Centro Centro House 20 Summer Lane Birmingham B19 3SD 0121 200 2787 http://www.centro.org.uk

Case studies
Guide to case studies
Introduction
This section of the resource pack contains a series of case studies by type of bus priority measure providing practical information drawn from experience of successful bus priority schemes implemented around the country. The case studies are designed to demonstrate the range of possible measures and also give some indication of under what conditions they might be suitable for consideration. It is important to remember that there isn’t an ’off the shelf’ solution that will maximise the benefits to buses regardless of location. The most appropriate measure in any one location will depend upon the local conditions prevailing in that area. Traffic levels, the number and frequency of bus services, available carriageway width and the types of properties fronting onto the road are some of the factors that need to be taken into account when considering the most appropriate bus priority measure for that location.

- 53 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The case studies
Groups of measures are colour-coded to assist navigation of the case studies in this section. The first group covers with-flow and contra-flow bus lanes (light purple). These measures mark out a lane of the carriageway for use by buses. They require sufficient carriageway width to enable them to be installed. With-flow lanes are amongst the most commonly adopted physical bus priority measures in this country. Contra-flow bus lanes, where the buses travel in the opposite direction to the main flow of vehicles, are less common but can be useful for example by providing a more direct route to a town centre than is available for general traffic. They also tend to be self enforcing. Further development of the conventional with-flow bus lane can include more comprehensive corridor/whole route treatments such as green routes (dark purple). Bus gates and rising bollards (dark blue) tend to be considered when access to a particular street is to be restricted to buses (and any other designated vehicle e.g. taxi or cycle). Bus gates can be traffic signals, actuated by the buses or simply signs restricting access to buses. Rising bollards provide a physical barrier that lowers out of the way when actuated by the bus. They can be particularly useful in enabling direct access by bus to areas where it is desirable to prevent other vehicles entering, such as shopping streets in town and city centres. Guided busways (blue) are a method for obtaining complete physical segregation of buses from other road traffic. As the name implies, a guided bus is one that travels on its own dedicated carriageway or track which ’guides’ the steering of the bus. Higher speeds can be achieved in the guideway and the presence of the guideway infrastructure can help impart the impression that guided busways offer some of the attributes of a light rail scheme. They are, also by their design, self enforcing. The five case studies on pre signals and bus advance areas, Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD), MOVA, Bus SCOOT and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) (light green) are examples of different technology based solutions to providing bus priority. Pre signals and bus advance areas enable the bus to get to the front of other traffic at junctions. The other four are sometimes referred to as ’virtual’ bus priority in that they do not require any physical space to implement them. In contrast to measures requiring physical use of road space, these measures use various methods of communication to detect the presence of buses and activate traffic lights to give priority to buses at junctions. The various technologies described in these case studies range from those which detect when a bus arrives at the traffic lights and then seeks to turn the lights green for the bus as soon as possible, through to technologies which can detect the location of a bus as it passes along its route and seek to set the lights ahead to provide priority to the bus. Mixed priority street and bus friendly traffic calming (green) are traffic management techniques that allow buses to operate in street environments which are more sympathetic to pedestrians and cyclists whilst also affording some priority to buses. Traffic calming measures may be suitable in areas where bus services run infrequently and the case for bus priority may be relatively weak. The introduction of well designed traffic management measures can improve the general flow of traffic, which benefits buses too. This approach may best suit semi-rural areas and small to medium-sized towns, where there is often simply not enough available road space to introduce certain types of bus priority.

- 54 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The group which includes High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and no-car lanes (yellow) are variants on the bus lane approach but differ in their designation of the type of vehicle allowed into the priority lane. HOV lanes can be suitable where there are insufficient bus services to justify a full bus lane, but there is a desire to give priority to vehicles with more than just one person on board. No car lanes are sometimes considered in town centres where the authority also wishes to give assistance to delivery lorries and to motorcycles. Park and ride (orange) focuses on getting people to use the bus instead of their cars, for the final leg of their inward journey. It requires sufficient space on the edge of town centres to provide adequate parking facilities. Park and ride schemes will also usually incorporate a high level of bus priority on the transfer route so that potential passengers can see a clear benefit over the private car. All of the measures described in these case studies should be supported by complementary measures (red). Measures to improve the bus stop environment can help improve boarding times and speed up services. Other measures such as prepaid ticketing can also assist this process. These final two case study leaflets provide a number of different examples of complementary measures.

With-flow bus lanes
Description of need
Background A strategic transport study carried out in 1995 predicted traffic and pollution problems that central Leicestershire would face in the next ten years. The research showed that radical measures would be needed to reduce car use, congestion and pollution. Longer-term measures would need to include: congestion charging; park and ride facilities; and better public transport. The first park and ride scheme was introduced in 1997 for the west of the city. The local authority introduced extensive with-flow bus lanes for all public bus services as well as the park and ride services. Problems The key predictions from the transport study for central Leicestershire were: the total number of journeys will increase by 11 per cent; the proportion of trips made by car will increase and car travel will account for 81 per cent of person trip miles; there will be greater pressure on city centre parking; walking, cycling and bus use will all decline; road traffic accidents will increase by 19 per cent; and emissions of CO² and other pollutants will increase by 15 to 20 per cent.

- 55 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Objectives As part of Leicester’s park and ride strategy, the bus initiative aimed to: make the city centre more accessible; provide high quality bus services to and from the city centre from surrounding areas; increase the number of people using the bus for all journeys; reduce the number of car journeys into the city centre; reduce pressure on city centre parking; and help cut pollution and improve the environment.

Scheme details
Description The project included the following elements: 24 hour bus lanes (permitting cyclists, and taxis as of 1999); red surfacing of bus lanes; and minor junction improvements. In total, 4.5km of bus lanes were introduced over a total road length of 6km. Entering the city (inbound), bus lanes are usually continuous and provide a high level of priority for local and park and ride buses. However, leaving the city (outbound), bus lanes were only introduced at major hot spots due to the narrowness of the road. Owing to the considerable length of the bus lanes along Hinckley Road, there are a number of different frontage types. Industrial, retail and residential land uses are all found alongside the bus lanes, residential being the most prevalent. Implementation date The scheme was completed in August 1997. Costs The total cost of the bus priority measures was £1.2 million. Consultation Public exhibitions were held along with roadside and household questionnaires. The police were also consulted. They requested that bus lanes that permitted shared use with cyclists should be at least 3.5 metres wide. The width of bus lane on Hinckley Road varies between 3.0 and 3.5 metres; this is largely dependent on the available carriageway width. Bus operators

- 56 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The main bus operators running services along the Hinckley Road corridor are First Leicester and Arriva Midland. Less frequent services are operated by Stagecoach Midland Red and Centrebus. Bus frequency Park and ride buses on this corridor operate four buses an hour at peak times. Frequencies of other services on Hinckley Road vary between 1 and 6 per hour, with a combined total of at least 30 buses per hour operating over the Glenfield Street to St Nicholas Circle section of the bus lane.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys The scheme corridor was monitored before implementation in 1997 and after implementation, in January 1998. Types of surveys As part of the project, the effects on general traffic and bus passengers were monitored. The main survey areas were bus and car journey times, traffic flows into the city and park and ride use.

Results
Traffic flows Traffic flow was recorded on Leicester’s principal routes during the project. The county council’s automatic traffic counters on the A47 Hinckley Road recorded similar levels of traffic before and after the initiative. Weekday inbound flows increased by 6 per cent between October 1997 and May 1998, while outbound flows reduced by 2 per cent. However, during the morning inbound peak hour, the Hinckley Road corridor saw a 17 per cent reduction in vehicles, from 1,100 to 910. There was a similar reduction of 150 vehicles during the afternoon outbound peak. Journey times Comparisons of bus and car journey times on Hinckley Road following the introduction of bus priority measures show a significant reduction for buses and little change for cars. Bus journey times during the morning inbound peak were cut from 23 to 18 minutes: a 22 per cent reduction. During the afternoon outbound peak, they dropped by 23 per cent. Bus priority measures had a minimal effect on car journey times. During the morning inbound peak they dropped by 5 per cent and during the afternoon outbound peak they increased by 2 per cent.

- 57 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The bus lane had an even greater effect on the new park and ride buses. The average journey time on the park and ride service was 12 minutes: nearly one and a half minutes faster than the average journey time for cars. Taking account of the additional time it would take a motorist to park in the city centre, there is a clear time benefit to bus users. Importantly, the difference between journey times for cars and buses narrowed considerably as a result of the new bus lanes. Before the bus lanes were introduced, afternoon outbound peak bus journeys were seven minutes slower than car journeys. Afterwards, the difference was reduced to less than two minutes. Bus and car journey times at peak periods Bus and car journey times at peak periods Reliability Journey time surveys on Hinckley Road showed that the bus lanes greatly improved the reliability of services. As a result of the scheme, unreliability has been halved to just two and a half minutes in the morning inbound peak.

Conclusions
Following the bus priority measures, bus services to and from the city were much faster. During the busiest times, local bus services are now about 22 per cent faster than before, and only slightly slower than car journeys. Park and ride buses can cover the distance to and from the city centre nearly one and a half minutes faster than cars. When parking times are taken into account, bus journeys are at best faster and at worst much the same as car journeys. The reduction in peak hour traffic flows, faster bus journey times and bus reliability improvements are all indicative that the project has successfully met its objectives.

References
LERTS, Leicester environmental road tolling scheme, 1999.

Acknowledgements
This document was produced with the assistance of the Environment, Regeneration and Development Department at Leicester City Council. For further information, contact the ERD Department on: 0116 2526339 or email: environment.helpline@leicester.gov.uk

Other examples
Kingsway, Bedford Contact the Traffic Management Department at Bedfordshire County Council for more details on: 01234 228686.

- 58 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

King Street ,Dudley Contact Traffic Management and Development at Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council for more details at: transp.due@dudley.gov.uk

Further information
The following documents offer guidance for the implementation of with-flow bus lanes: DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. London Bus Priority Network Design Brief, LTB, 1994. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, The Stationery Office, 2002. Further information may also be sought from: Hounsell NB and McDonald M, Evaluation of Bus Lanes, CR87 Transport Research Laboratory, 1985 - 93. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/01, Bus Priority, Traffic Advisory Unit, 2001.

Contra-flow bus lanes
Description of need
Background Rotherham Interchange is situated on the northern fringe of Rotherham town centre. It is the focal point for local bus services in the Rotherham area. Corporation Street is a road extending south through the town centre from the Interchange. Corporation Street used to be a one-way street carrying northbound traffic. It formed part of the route through the town centre to the Interchange for bus services from the south of the town. It is a secondary shopping street at the eastern end of the central retail area. Northbound traffic is moderate and much of the pedestrian activity is focused on the bus stops and taxi rank. Location plan showing before and after routes Problems Buses leaving Rotherham Interchange used to follow a circuitous route via Bridge Street, College Road, Centenary Way and Main Street to gain access to roads to the south west of the town centre. Buses leaving the Interchange experienced substantial delays in joining the ring road at the roundabout junction of College Road and Centenary Way. In peak periods buses were also delayed at the Masbrough Street roundabout on the ring road. Objectives

- 59 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The scheme has been designed to: improve penetration of the town centre by bus services; improve reliability and reduce variability of journey time by avoiding delay at the Centenary Way/ College Road roundabout; provide a more direct route and reduce bus journey times; improve safety and the environment for pedestrians on Corporation Street; and increase bus patronage by encouraging transfer from private car.

Scheme details
Description The scheme consists of a southbound contra-flow bus lane extending for 280 metres between the Bridge Street exit from the Interchange and Market Square (the junction of Market Place, High Street and Westgate). There are two bus stops in the contra-flow bus lane and another two bus stops with bus stop clearway protection in the northbound general traffic lane. There is a short 24 hour bus lane in the centre of the carriageway at the north end of Corporation Street to provide access to Rotherham Interchange for northbound buses. Some carriageway widening was necessary to cater for two-way operation and provide enough room for bus stops, loading bays, parking spaces for disabled people and a taxi rank. Modifications were made to the signal-controlled junctions at both ends of Corporation Street and a Pelican crossing was upgraded to a Puffin. Three ramped pedestrian crossing areas were provided to ensure vehicle speeds were kept down. Buses are the only category of vehicle permitted to use both the contra-flow bus lane and the short northbound bus lane that provides access to the Interchange. The contra-flow bus lane varies in width with a minimum of about 3.0 metres over a distance of about 30 metres. Implementation date Work on site commenced in May 2002 and the contra-flow bus lane was opened in late October 2002. Detailed scheme layout Detailed scheme layout Costs The scheme cost £450,000 of which £250,000 was attributable to the contra-flow bus lane and £200,000 to environmental improvements. The works funded included replacement of two signalised junctions, upgrading of a Pelican to a Puffin crossing, and green surfacing of the full length of the bus lane. Other improvements included level footways through vehicle crossings, new flags and block paving at vehicle crossings, new lighting columns, and new litter bins, bollards and railings. Consultation

- 60 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

A small exhibition was held in Rotherham town centre to gauge public feeling towards the proposals. During conceptual design, meetings were held with owners and occupiers of frontage properties on Corporation Street and other premises affected by the proposals. The intention was to identify and resolve potential problems with deliveries and access. Further meetings with owners and occupiers took place before scheme design was finalised. Comprehensive consultation ensured that only one objection was received when the proposals were advertised. Extensive consultation with bus operators took place throughout the project and covered scheme development, programming and accommodation works. Quality Bus Corridor meetings arranged by South Yorkshire PTE provided the opportunity for discussion. The Council’s Access Officer was involved in design work to ensure that the needs of elderly and disabled people were fully met. Before work started, owners and occupiers of frontage properties were visited to agree access arrangements during construction. During the week prior to opening of the contra-flow bus lane, leaflets were handed out to pedestrians on Corporation Street to ensure awareness of the new road layout and two-way operation on Corporation Street. Bus operators First in South Yorkshire operate virtually all services on Corporation Street. One other company operates a few journeys. Bus frequency Provision of the new contra-flow bus lane allowed the diversion of eight southbound bus services via Corporation Street. They have a combined frequency of 24 to 25 buses per hour in daytime on weekdays.

Before and after monitoring
Dates and types of survey ’Before’ bus journey time and bus occupancy surveys were undertaken during May and June 1999. South Yorkshire PTE is to carry out ’after’ surveys following implementation of other schemes on the Sheffield - Rotherham - Doncaster Quality Bus Corridor. Cordon counts of traffic entering Rotherham town centre are undertaken during the first two weeks of October every year. ’Before’ traffic count data are available for 2002 and ’after’ traffic count data will be available in October 2003. Results Information supplied by First in South Yorkshire identifies benefits to the operation of bus services resulting from implementation of the contra-flow bus lane:

- 61 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Services bound for Canklow Road: Distance operated per trip was reduced by 0.8km. On Services 130/132 (6 per hour) running time to Canklow was reduced from 10 to 8 minutes. As running time allowed to Canklow on longer distance services 13/29/264 (1 to 2 per hour) was only 7 minutes, the benefit took the form of improved reliability. Services bound for Sheffield Road (5 per hour): Distance operated per trip was reduced by 0.8km. Running time was not reduced because the scheduled time to the next timing point was considered to be tight. Benefits took the form of improved reliability. Services bound for Masbrough Street (12 per hour): There was no saving in distance operated as the old and new routes were similar in length. At first, running time was reduced because delay was avoided at the junction of College Way and Centenary Way. This proved to be optimistic and the reduction in running time was removed. The scheme allowed the introduction of a new and more convenient bus stop serving the main shopping area. There is anecdotal evidence that the increased pedestrian activity around the new bus stops has helped to regenerate the area. South Yorkshire Police insist that buses should not cross the central white line in the road unless authorised by a police officer. An emergency plan has been drawn up for alternative routes and provision of a recovery vehicle to deal with vehicle breakdowns in the contra-flow bus lane. All street works are planned and alternative routes agreed in advance with bus operators via South Yorkshire PTE. Traffic Flows No adverse impact was experienced by general traffic using Corporation Street in the northbound direction. Although ’after’ traffic count data is not yet available, observation suggests no noticeable change in traffic volume.

Conclusions
Introduction of the contra-flow bus lane provided a more direct route through the town centre for a number of bus services. It also allowed the introduction of more convenient outbound bus stops serving the town centre. Reduced journey times were achieved on some services. On others, the reduction in journey time was used to improve reliability.

Acknowledgements
This was produced with the assistance of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and First in South Yorkshire.

Other Examples
Russell Square, London WC1 Contact the London Borough of Camden on: 020 7278 4444 (main switchboard). Ask for the Team Manager of the Transportation and Engineering Department.

- 62 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

North Lane, Leeds Contact Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department on: 0113 247 7500.

Further Information
Further information on the Corporation Street contra-flow bus lane can be obtained from: Rotherham Metropolitan District Council, Planning, Transportation and Tourism Service, Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD 01709 822958 http://www.rotherham.gov.uk South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive PO Box 801, Exchange Street, Sheffield S2 5YT 0113 276 7575 http://www.sypte.co.uk Other general guidance on the implementation of schemes such as this can be found in the following: DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, The Stationery Office, 2002.

Green routes
Description of need
Background

- 63 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Hertfordshire’s Green Routes form part of the strategy for delivering the bus policy set out in the Local Transport Plan. In particular, Green Routes are intended to help to deliver improved reliability through bus priority, enhanced service levels, better quality buses, a more accessible bus network and better facilities and information for passengers. The A412 St. Albans Road is located to the north of Watford and connects the town centre to the A405 Kingsway North Orbital Road. The overall aim of the scheme was to make use of road space on St. Albans Road, released by the opening of a new parallel road, in order to provide priority for buses and encourage modal shift to buses. Problems The numerous bus services using St. Albans Road suffered from poor reliability as buses were delayed by traffic congestion. Objectives The overall objectives of Green Routes in Hertfordshire are to provide a more reliable service, an increased level of service, accessible buses and bus stops, better facilities for passengers at bus stops and high quality information through partnership between the County Council and bus operators. The aims specific to the St. Albans Road Green Route project were to provide a more reliable and attractive bus service, encourage modal shift in favour of the bus, improve overall access to the town and assist people with restricted mobility. The five specific objectives are as follows: to improve bus operations and passenger facilities with extra priority for buses; to discourage cars and commercial vehicles from using the A412 St. Albans Road in favour of the parallel A4008 Stephenson Way; to encourage a modal shift towards the bus whilst improving overall access to the town and assisting people with restricted mobility; to introduce safe and convenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists; and to encourage Heavy Goods Vehicles to use St. Albans Road for access only.

Illustration of scheme
St. Albans Road Green Route St. Albans Road Green Route

Scheme details
Description The scheme extends northwards along the A412 St. Albans Road from Watford Junction in the south to a point close to the junction with the A405(T) Kingsway North Orbital Road. The opening of the A4008 Stephenson Way connecting Watford with the M1 and A41 (T) in 1993 created the opportunity to introduce priority for buses on the A412 utilising road space released by traffic transferring to Stephenson Way.

- 64 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Priority for buses was provided by the designation of with-flow bus lanes totalling 885 metres in length, installation of pre signals at three junctions and introduction of selective vehicle detection in an enhanced version of SCOOT. Accessibility was improved by the introduction of low floor buses and the installation of easy access kerbs at bus stops. Improvements were made to facilities for passengers through the installation of new shelters and provision of improved seating, street lighting and timetable displays. Measures were also introduced to increase pedestrian safety through improvement works at a pedestrian crossing and the introduction of signal controlled pedestrian crossing facilities at two locations. The overriding need to manage traffic entering and leaving the A41(T) at the Dome Roundabout limited the scope for developing effective bus priority measures on the St. Albans Road approaches to the junction. Conditions for cyclists were improved by permitting shared use of bus lanes, introducing several lengths of cycle lane and providing advance stop lines at several traffic signal controlled junctions. Ancillary measures included provision of loading bays and a small number of ’pay and display’ car parking spaces, footway resurfacing, improvements to pedestrian crossing points and replacement of pedestrian guard rail. Implementation date The scheme was implemented in three phases following an initial UTC upgrade in 1996. Phase 1 construction works began in January 1998; the following phases were opened in June 1998, November 1998 and August 1999. Selective detection of buses became operational in February 2000 and some further small-scale improvement works were also implemented at Station Road, Watford during 2000. Cost The overall cost of the scheme was £1.76 million (2000 prices). The total cost is broken down as follows: Activity Statutory undertakers diversions UTC upgrades (1996) Phase 1 construction (January to June 1998) Phase 2 construction (August to November 1998) Phase 3 construction (February to August 1999) Selective vehicle detection, active bus priority Cost (£million) 0.11 0.42 0.52 0.50 0.06 0.01

Post implementation modification (works at Station Road) 0.14 Total Source: Hertfordshire County Council 1.76

- 65 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

In addition, Arriva expenditure on new easy access, low floor buses in the Watford area totalled £4.7 million in the period 1997 to 2000. This included the acquisition of 11 gas powered buses. Consultation A number of public exhibitions detailing proposals for the scheme were held in Autumn 1995. A leaflet was produced outlining proposals and inviting members of the public to the exhibitions; the leaflets were distributed to all households in the area. Comments on the proposals were collected using a questionnaire at the exhibitions. These comments were taken on board and changes were made to the proposals including shortening the bus lanes in places and toning down the parking restrictions. The second set of proposals were displayed in a second round of public exhibitions during February 1997; this coincided with advertising of the TROs. Bus operator The great majority of bus services on the St. Albans Road corridor are operated by Arriva The Shires and Essex. The operator was closely involved in development of the proposed scheme in accordance with the voluntary Quality Bus Partnership and made contributions through deployment of new low floor buses and by undertaking a bus user survey as a contribution to scheme monitoring. Bus frequency The A412 St. Albans Road Corridor in Watford carries the highest density of bus services of any road in Hertfordshire. During the weekday inter-peak period there are 16 buses per hour in each direction with additional journeys operating at peak times.

Before and after monitoring
Types and dates of surveys Extensive before and after monitoring has taken place to establish the impact of the Green Route project: automatic and manual classified traffic counts: manual counts in 1996 and 2000; bus journey time surveys (on-bus and roadside): 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999 (before) and June 2000 (after); car journey time surveys: 1994, 1999 and 2000; bus occupancy surveys: March 1996 and July 2000; perception survey of bus users: May/June 2000; and interview survey of local residents and postal questionnaire to properties fronting on to St. Albans Road: 2001.

Results
Traffic flows

- 66 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Analysis of automatic traffic count data for 1996 and 1999 indicates that traffic flows on the A412 St. Albans Road decreased by 11 per cent south of the A41(T) junction and by 6 per cent to the north of the junction. In the same period, traffic flow on the A4008 Stephenson Way increased by 20 per cent indicating the diversion of traffic from the A412 to the parallel A4008. In comparison, traffic in the Watford area grew by 5 per cent during the same time period. Manual traffic counts undertaken at a number of points along the A412 indicate an overall reduction of 14 per cent in weekday two-way traffic flow over a period of 12 hours. There was also a reduction of up to 15 per cent in traffic levels on side roads. Journey times Average southbound bus journey times on the southern part of the St. Albans Road Green Route between the A41(T) at the Dome Roundabout and Station Road, Watford decreased by 2.5 minutes (12 per cent) in the AM peak period between February 1996 and June 2000 but were unchanged in the inter-peak and PM peak periods. In the northbound direction the average journey time reduction over all three time periods was more than 1.5 minutes (17 per cent). Car journey times southbound between Garston and Watford Junction Station at the northern and southern ends of the Green Route increased by 7.5 minutes in the AM peak and 3.0 minutes in the inter-peak period between 1994 and 2000. There were no significant changes in car journey times southbound in the PM peak and northbound in all three time periods. Analysis of vehicle queuing counts indicates an overall increase in queuing at junctions on St. Albans Road between 1996 and 2000 reflecting the loss of stacking space following the introduction of bus lanes and pre signals. In developing the scheme it had been anticipated that increased queuing and car journey times on St. Albans Road would encourage general traffic to divert to the A4008 Stephenson Way. Reliability A survey of bus arrival times in Watford town centre undertaken by Arriva indicated an improvement of 65 per cent in bus reliability. Bus occupancy and modal share A comparison of bus occupancy in March 1996 and July 2000 showed increases in the number of people travelling by bus of 17 per cent in the AM peak, 18 per cent off-peak and 11 per cent in the PM peak. Bus mode share increased by 5 per cent in the same period. A comparison of 1999 and 2000 patronage data for two key bus services using St. Albans Road showed an increase of 1.8 per cent compared with a fall of 6.1 per cent on the remainder of the local network. Local opinion A bus passenger interview survey commissioned by Arriva in May 2000 included 387 completed interviews. The majority of respondents thought that buses were normally on time (67 per cent), bus journey time had stayed the same or improved since completion of the Green Route (82 per cent) and that the quality of passenger shelters had improved (53 per cent). Issues of concern to respondents included delays to buses at locations beyond the Green Route and the frequency of bus services using the corridor.

- 67 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Market research of the views of local businesses and occupiers of frontage properties indicated that improved access to shops, loading bays and parking facilities were the most positive elements of the Green Route project whilst the least satisfactory aspects were disruption to trade during construction and decrease in traffic speed. Air quality Emissions by buses were reduced as a result of investment by Arriva in new low floor diesel and gas-powered buses. The gas-powered buses were effective in reducing emissions but problems were encountered with fuel consumption and range on a full tank of fuel. Consequently, the fleet of gas buses has now been converted to operate on diesel fuel.

Conclusions
Hertfordshire County Council considers that the St. Albans Road Green Route has achieved its objectives of reducing bus journey times, improving reliability and increasing bus patronage and mode share. The strategic objective of displacing traffic onto a more suitable parallel route (A4008 Stephenson Way) has also been achieved without any increase in ’rat running’.

References
Green Route Scrutiny, Report by Transport Panel, Hertfordshire County Council, December 2001. St. Albans Road Green Route Project Before and After Report, Hertfordshire County Council, August 2000.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Hertfordshire County Council.

Other examples
Other examples can be found in this resource pack, including: Durham Road Super Route, Sunderland. Chepstow Road, Newport.

Further information
Further information on the St. Albans Road Green Route can be obtained from: Hertfordshire County Council Highways House 41-45 Broadwater Road

- 68 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Welwyn Garden City Herts AL10 8YD 01707 356560 http://www.hertsdirect.org

Bus gates and bus only links
Introduction
Bus gates and bus only links are short lengths of bus only street intended to allow buses to travel on direct routes that are prohibited to all other traffic. They are used to keep unwanted traffic out of an area whilst allowing the operation of a bus service on a direct route that is attractive to passengers. In its simplest form a bus gate or bus only link is a short section of road where a Traffic Regulation Order is in place restricting access to buses. Signs are the only protection against violation. In such cases, abuse of the restriction by other categories of traffic is common. Local authorities have adopted a variety of approaches to make bus gates more effective or self-enforcing. Measures used include application of a different colour or surface treatment to the gate, carriageway narrowing (sometimes complemented by traffic calming or a physical obstruction), and protection by bus-activated traffic signals or rising bollards. Bus gates or bus only links can be used in a variety of different situations: as part of a toolkit of measures used to restrict access for general traffic and allow buses to operate in town and city centres; to enable buses to bypass congested junctions; to allow buses to penetrate residential areas, industrial areas and business parks whilst preventing the route becoming an attractive short-cut for unwanted through traffic; and to maintain bus routes where a traffic management scheme has been implemented or a new road has been built.

Enforcement
Bus gates are particularly susceptible to violation unless measures are taken to make them less attractive to motorists and more self-enforcing. This can be done in a number of ways: by narrowing the carriageway in the bus gate to the minimum necessary to accommodate a bus; by installing traffic signals with bus detection; by installing rising bollards that are activated by transponders on buses (see case study of Bridge Street rising bollards, Cambridge); and by using a different colour or surface treatment for the bus gate or installing traffic calming (e.g. a speed cushion) in the gate (see case study of bus friendly traffic calming, Hull).

- 69 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

In a few locations local authorities have utilised physical obstructions that can be crossed by buses, but not by cars, as an alternative to installing a speed cushion in a bus gate. The difficulty with a physical obstruction such as a sunken area in the middle of the carriageway is that it may preclude use of the bus gate by emergency vehicles, minibuses and some midibuses. The priority access point on Northgate Street in Bath City Centre was introduced by Bath and North East Somerset Council in 2001 with the objectives of reducing the volume of traffic in the city centre, providing an opportunity to improve public transport services, reducing noise and air pollution in the city centre, improving the pedestrian environment for city centre users and thereby encouraging investment in the central area. Alternative routes were available for displaced traffic - A367 Green Park/Charles Street and A36 Bathwick Street/Cleveland Place. The diagram below illustrates the strategic location of the bus gate. The priority access point takes the form of a short length of road with access controlled by a set of transponder-activated traffic signals. From initial implementation, the bus gate operated between 08.30 and 18.30 on all days of the week. This time period was chosen following consultation with the police, emergency services, city centre traders and bus operators. Following a review of the hours of operation, it is proposed to revise the hours to 10.00 to 18.00 during 2004/05 in order to ease constraints on servicing premises in the city centre. This scheme is part of the city’s wider traffic management system that has been introduced with the aim of improving the environment in central Bath and creating a more pleasant area for all users. The priority access point is used by 14-15 southbound buses per hour in peak hours reducing to 12-13 buses per hour in the inter-peak. In addition the bus gate can be used by taxis, private hire vehicles, emergency vehicles and cycles. Monitoring has shown reduced bus journey times, increased reliability and reduced traffic levels on the streets leading to the priority access point of up to 70 per cent after implementation. Strathmore Street bus gate, Perth A with-flow bus lane and bus gate were installed on Strathmore Street in Perth in order to enable buses to bypass queuing traffic. The bus gate at the end of the bus lane is intended to allow buses to re-enter the traffic lane safely at a pinch point where the carriageway can accommodate only two lanes. Buses leaving the bus stop at the end of the bus lane trigger the traffic signals at the bus gate to create a gap in the traffic. A hurry call is also sent to downstream traffic signals. The downstream section of the route is heavily congested and the traffic signals at the bus gate can be used to control traffic flow. Limited localised carriageway widening was necessary over a length of 35 metres to enable construction of the bus gate. The maximum depth of widening was 2.0 metres. The scheme is one of several measures introduced in Perth to improve reliability on Stagecoach service 7. The combined effect of a doubling of daytime frequency, the introduction of new buses and the reliability benefits of bus priority has seen an increase of more than 50 per cent in patronage. Strathmore Street bus priority

- 70 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Strathmore Street bus priority Ilminster Road bus gate, Taunton The bus gate on Old Ilminster Road in Taunton has been in operation since 1996 and has brought significant journey time and distance savings for bus services travelling into the centre of Taunton. A plan is provided to illustrate the scheme and shows the new route taken by buses alongside the route used before the bus gate was installed. Before the installation of the bus gate in 1996, buses travelled the same route as general traffic, from the motorway junction and along the dual carriageway (A358) before entering the town centre, a journey of around 3 kilometres. Since the bus gate has been introduced buses now avoid congestion at junctions on this busy dual carriageway and as a result the journey distance has dropped to around 1.6 kilometres and saves around 15 minutes during peak hours. As the photo shows, the bus gate is enforced with a rising bollard, which is activated by transponders on the bus. Fire service vehicles can also use this bus gate; they are fitted with tags which are enabled by their emergency lights. The tag activates the bollard and allows them to pass through. Old Ilminster Road bus route Old Ilminster Road bus route Guided bus link, Kesgrave, Ipswich The Kesgrave guided busway on Superoute 66 in Ipswich is an example of a fully self-enforcing bus link. The purpose of the 200 metre length of guided busway is to allow buses to take a direct route between two neighbouring residential areas without providing a through route for cars avoiding main road traffic congestion. The route taken by the Superoute 66 service is shown on the above plan with the yellow line representing the guided bus link. By using this guided bus link around one and a half minutes is saved on each Superoute journey; selective vehicle detection (SVD) used at two junctions further along this route also helps to ensure that this service runs to schedule. Guided bus link, Kesgrave, Ipswich Superoute 66 The service also incorporates Real Time Passenger Information technology at some stops providing passengers with information about the next bus expected at the stop. The Superoute 66 has been a success and the frequency of the service has altered to reflect this. When the service started buses ran every 20 minutes, however, due to its success the service has been increased to operate on a 24-hour basis with the bus running at 15 minute intervals with a 10 minute frequency in the peak hours and hourly overnight. In addition vehicle type has been changed from short single-deck vehicles, through long single-deck buses to double-deck vehicles.

- 71 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Derriford Road, Plymouth Stage 2 of bus priority works in the Derriford Road area of Plymouth began in March 2004. The work, which incorporated the installation of a signal controlled bus gate, was completed in August 2004 as part of a wider package of bus priority measures which are in place on Derriford Road. The works carried out on Derriford Road have extended the existing bus lane and added new measures to encourage the use of bus over the private car. The installation of the most recent bus gate in this area is used as an example here. The bus gate was installed with the help of developer funding. It allows southbound buses travelling on the A386 access to Derriford Hospital without having to use Derriford roundabout. This means that buses can bypass busy sections of road and make journey time savings. The Derriford Road bus priority scheme The Derriford Road bus priority scheme Pemros Road, Plymouth The Pemros Road bus gate and bus only link in Plymouth have been in place for many years. The presence of the bus gate and bus only link prevents general traffic from using a road which goes through a residential area to get to the Tamar Bridge. The bus only link carries bus services wanting to cross the busy Tamar Bridge and allows them to travel easily avoiding general traffic congestion. The bus gate is open to taxis as well as buses and is enforced with a camera. The Tamar Bridge has also been fitted with a tagging system that detects buses travelling eastwards from Saltash and closes the toll lane barriers. This prevents general traffic travelling up the A38. While general traffic is being held, buses are then free to turn right from the left hand lane to reach the Pemros Road bus gate.

Conclusions
The bus gates and bus only links discussed have all been implemented as part of a wider package of bus priority measures which have had significant effects on either bus patronage or bus journey times. The examples used all show different technologies and enforcement measures which can be used when installing a bus gate with each of them having some success in their installation. The use of a bus gate or bus only link however, should be considered with regards to local conditions to ensure that they are appropriate. Consultation is also an important part of the process and should not be overlooked.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Bath and North East Somerset Council, Perth and Kinross Council, Somerset County Council, Suffolk County Council and Plymouth City Council.

- 72 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Other examples
A number of examples of bus gates are to be found in case studies elsewhere in this resource pack: Leeds City Centre: A number of bus gates provide priority access for buses to the central area ’public transport box’ whilst encouraging other vehicles to use the ’city centre loop’ road to make cross-city trips; Oxford City Centre: Several bus gates have been installed to control access to the city centre public transport route as part of the Oxford Transport Strategy; and Cambridge City Centre: The Bridge Street bus gate in Cambridge is made self-enforcing by the use of rising bollards.

References
Guidelines for Planning for Public Transport in Developments, The Institution of Highways and Transportation, 1999. Local Transport Note 1/97 Keeping Buses Moving, 1997.

Further information
For further information on the case studies identified in this leaflet contact: Barbara Selby, Traffic and Transportation Manager (Transportation and Highways), Bath and North East Somerset Council on 01225 395386. Scott Denyer (Urban Traffic Control), Perth and Kinross Council on 01738 476517. Keith Jennings, Traffic Signals Manager, Somerset County Council on 01823 358233 or email: kpjennings@somerset.gov.uk Ian Gray, Transport Co-ordination Manager, Suffolk County Council on 01473 265049. Philip Heseltine, Senior Engineer (Transportation), Plymouth City Council on 01752 307942.

Rising bollards
Description of need
Background The Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme (CCTS) is an important part of the city’s overall transport strategy, developed to cut congestion in the centre. Both the local city plan and the county structure plan recognise the need to reduce traffic in the relatively compact central area, as this would improve safety, air quality and the general environment. CCTS involves restricting through traffic to the city centre at key entry points using rising bollards. Local buses, taxis and bicycles are exempt from the restrictions.

- 73 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Residents and businesses in the city centre were canvassed on which routes should be restricted, and they gave their strongest support to Bridge Street, just north of the city centre. Problems The main problem in Cambridge was perceived as the high traffic levels in a relatively compact city. This, in turn, resulted in a range of adverse impacts such as poor pedestrian safety, air quality concerns and delays to public transport. Objectives The overall objective of CCTS is to ’encourage greater use of walking, cycling and public transport and discourage dependency on the private motor car’. CCTS also meets both national and regional objectives on traffic reduction and improved air quality. The local objectives are to: stop cars driving into the city centre; maintain access to city centre properties; maintain public transport and cycle access; improve pedestrian safety; enhance the environment; improve air quality; and achieve an overall improvement.

Scheme details
Description Traffic restraint via rising bollards acting as a bus gate. One side of Bridge Street is occupied by college buildings and the other is retail, mainly pubs and restaurants. Implementation date The closure scheme began on 22 January 1997. Costs Funding for the CCTS came from the Government as part of public transport allocations. £150,000 was spent on the experiment. Although maintenance is handled under a single contract covering all bollard systems in the city, annual maintenance costs have been estimated at £5,000. Consultation Stakeholders, residents and business within the central core area were consulted on the scheme. Public consultation in March 1998 followed the experimental introduction and showed good support. Bus operator

- 74 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Stagecoach Cambus. Bus frequency Park and ride services have a 10 minute frequency, as do many of the other services that run in Cambridge. More rural services operate on a lower frequency of 30 minutes to an hour.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys Cambridge City Council carried out monitoring surveys in both the summer and autumn of 1996, before implementing the scheme; ’after’ surveys were carried out in autumn 1997. Types of surveys The surveys looked at a range of variables, including: traffic flows; vehicle speeds; journey times; cycle and pedestrian flows; and air quality. The local authority chose monitoring sites on main roads where it could expect traffic flows to increase. Manual classified counts were carried out on main roads. These took place on both weekdays and Saturdays between 07.00 and 19.00. Peak hour traffic surveys were carried out elsewhere. Journey time surveys were carried out in both directions on the inner ring road during the morning and evening peaks and at off-peak times. Similar surveys were also carried out on four radial routes, which were either used by park and ride buses, or gave access to the north west of the city. The city council made the results of this extensive monitoring available in January 1998. The main findings are summarised below.

Results
Traffic flows The city’s radial routes and inner ring road showed collectively little change after the scheme was introduced. But some individual roads experienced increases in traffic, whilst others experienced decreases as a result of the scheme.

- 75 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

On Bridge Street itself, traffic was physically prevented from entering, so obviously it was significantly reduced: by up to 85 per cent on weekdays. Evaluation of the scheme concluded that overall, ’significant traffic reductions have been achieved on the closure route without causing unexpected increases on other roads’. Journey times Journey time savings for general traffic showed a ’mixed bag’ of results. However, there was a general improvement on the inner ring during peak periods and deterioration in off peak journey times. The table below summarises changes to journey times. Summary of journey times on the ring road Clockwise AM Peak Off Peak PM Peak BEFORE (min:sec) 18:17 17:24 41:49 AFTER (min:sec) 17:19 19:47 35:42 Anti-clockwise AM Peak Off Peak PM Peak BEFORE (min:sec) 23:58 15:26 23:17 AFTER (min:sec) 18:51 17:10 25:18

(Data based on 85th percentile of journey time runs per time period) Air quality Cambridge City Council monitored nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels before and after implementation of the scheme. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the air pollutants most closely associated with traffic and is a useful indicator of traffic-related pollution. Air quality monitoring indicates that NO2 levels have improved or stayed the same at 16 out of 18 sites across the city centre. Air quality has only deteriorated at two sites. Overall, the scheme seems to have had a positive effect. System performance During the scheme’s early days, the number of hours that the bollards operated was disappointing. This was largely because unauthorised vehicles tried to get through the Bridge Street bollards immediately behind buses and taxis and, in doing so, damaged the bollards. The council improved the performance of the bollards by introducing flashing warning signs, changing the closure point layout and improving the detection system for unauthorised vehicles. The bollards now operate effectively for around 95 per cent of the time.

- 76 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Conclusions
The rising bollards in Bridge Street have given significant priority to local buses, taxis and cyclists entering Cambridge city centre. Traffic flows have been significantly reduced on the closure route without causing an unexpected increase in traffic on other roads. The scheme has also improved local air quality.

References
Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme: Stage 1 - Bridge Street Experimental Road Closure, Environment and Transport Committee, 1998.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the help of the Environment and Transport Department at Cambridgeshire County Council. For further information contact the Cambridge Project Team on: 01223 717780.

Other examples
Stonebow, York Contact The City of York Council, Network Management Section (Traffic unit) on: 01904 613161 ext: 1450. High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire Contact Buckingham County Council for more details: wycombe@buckscc.gov.uk or the Wycombe Area Office on: 01494 475315.

Further information
Assistance with the implementation of rising bollards is offered in the following document ⢠Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/97, Rising Bollards, DETR, April 1997. DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. The Local Authority Rising Bollard User Group (LARBUG) intends to publish advice on the use of rising bollards in due course.

Guided busways
Description of need
Background The A641 Manchester Road in Bradford is the main route south from the city centre to the M606 motorway and the towns of Brighouse and Huddersfield. Before the guided bus scheme, there was no priority for buses on the Bradford section of this corridor. Traffic congestion meant long journey times and poor reliability.

- 77 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

In 1998, the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (MDC), West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Metro) and bus operator First commissioned two studies. These recommended the development of a guided bus scheme as part of the South Bradford Quality Bus initiative. This would give Manchester Road a high level of bus priority. City of Bradford MDC, Metro and First formed a public/private sector partnership to develop a guided bus scheme. They refined their proposals in 1999, so the final scheme consisted of a mix of guided busway, with-flow bus lanes and priority at signal controlled junctions. Construction began in November 2000 and the scheme opened in February 2002. Map of the Bradford area Problems Before the guided busway opened, congestion delayed buses in both directions during peak hours. Timetables included an additional 10 minutes to allow for delays. Congestion on Manchester Road affected the reliability of cross-city services on the Shipley and Leeds corridors. Surveys in 1998 - 99 highlighted reliability and punctuality as bus users’ greatest concerns. Motorists also identified reliability and punctuality of buses as the most important factor influencing their willingness to switch to bus. The city council was concerned about the way that the dual carriageway cut South Bradford in two for pedestrians, forcing them to rely on footbridges and subways. Objectives The scheme aimed to: ⢠improve bus reliability; ⢠reduce bus journey times; ⢠increase passenger confidence; and ⢠encourage motorists to switch to the bus.

Scheme details
Description The guided busway required the reallocation of 2.3 kilometres of road space on the dual carriageway’s central reservation. The scheme also involved the introduction of conventional near-side with-flow bus lanes for 1.1 kilometres of the route. These are available to buses and cyclists. In some places the number of lanes available for general traffic was cut from three to two in each direction. The objective was to provide two lanes for through traffic over the full length of the scheme. Three lanes were retained at junctions to cater for turning traffic. The speed limit was also lowered from 40 to 30 mph. The City Council installed signal-controlled pedestrian crossings at 11 locations to serve bus stops on the central guided busway and at kerbside bus stops. These additional crossings greatly improved pedestrian links between communities on opposite sides of Manchester Road.

- 78 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The Council also raised the kerb at stops on Manchester Road and elsewhere along the corridor to give close and level boarding. New bus shelters were also part of the scheme, including three landmark ’super shelters’. These are three times the size of normal shelters and fitted with wind turbines to power heated seats or an information display. As well as helping to pay for some of the infrastructure, First also provided new, accessible, low sulphur emission buses. They trained drivers to a higher standard in customer care and introduced a ’customer promise’ to guarantee service standards. Construction work was close enough to completion to allow driver training to begin in July 2001. Services began to operate along the guided busway on 31 January 2002. Costs The scheme cost £12 million at 2001 prices, including the cost of the new buses. Highway works cost £4.7 million, noise insulation £600,000 and diversions to statutory services £1 million. Consultation In summer 1999, the city council delivered a colour leaflet explaining the scheme to properties along the corridor. The leaflet included a short post-paid questionnaire. The council exhibited detailed plans at two locations in Bradford city centre and on a bus ’roadshow’ at a supermarket close to the corridor. Council officers answered questions on the scheme at a number of Neighbourhood Forums. Eight newsletters were issued to provide information on progress and explain the impact of construction works on traffic. Bus operators First in Bradford provides the majority of bus services on Manchester Road, including all those on the guided busway. Two Arriva Yorkshire services operate along sections of Manchester Road, but do not use any of the guided busways. Bus frequency During daytime on Mondays to Fridays there are 22 buses an hour in each direction on Manchester Road between Odsal and Bradford city centre.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys ’Before’ data was collected in May and June 2000. ’After’ surveys took place in May and June 2002. Types of surveys

- 79 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The ’before’ and ’after’ monitoring programme consisted of: car and bus journey time registration surveys; bus occupancy counts; automatic traffic counts; and manual classified traffic counts. A survey of attitudes among 240 bus passengers carried out in April 2002 showed that over 60 per cent ranked the service as good or very good on a range of 16 indicators.

Results
City of Bradford MDC has produced a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of the scheme. Here is a summary of the results. Traffic flows The principal finding was a clear fall in peak traffic using Manchester Road. Inbound traffic on Manchester Road fell by 14 per cent in the morning peak (07.30 to 09.30) and 13 per cent in the evening peak (16.00 to 18.00). Outbound traffic on Manchester Road fell by 17 per cent in the morning peak (07.30 to 09.30) and 7 per cent in the evening peak (16.00 to 18.00). The effect was not restricted to peak periods. Total weekday traffic using Manchester Road fell by about 11 per cent, mostly switching to other routes in and out of the city. Total inbound traffic on six radial routes to the south of the city centre including Manchester Road reduced by 6 per cent in the morning peak and 9 per cent in the evening peak. Total outbound traffic on the six radial routes fell by 4 per cent in the morning peak, but increased by 3 per cent in the evening peak. There is evidence that some traffic switched to other routes: into the city centre via Wakefield Road and outbound via both Little Horton Lane and Wakefield Road. Journey times The installation of 11 new signal-controlled pedestrian crossings was an essential component of the scheme but had an adverse effect on bus and car journey times. Inbound Scheduled bus journey time between Odsal Top and Bradford Interchange is 15 minutes in the morning peak and 13 minutes at other times. The express bus service is about three minutes quicker. Average journey times for inbound stopping bus services reduced by one minute in the morning peak period (7 per cent), but journey times for the express service did not improve. In the morning peak hour the average time saving increased to two minutes (13 per cent). Inbound car journey times increased in both periods by between one and two minutes.

- 80 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Before the scheme began, peak inbound car journeys were five minutes faster than stopping bus services and similar to express bus times. After implementation, inbound car journeys took as long as stopping buses and the average express bus was three minutes faster than the car. In the morning inter-peak period, journey times increased for both buses and cars. The net effect was to increase the difference in journey times between stopping buses and cars from four to five minutes. In the morning peak, the scheme improved bus reliability by reducing variability in express and stopping bus journey times. At the same time, variability in journey times by car increased. Outbound Scheduled bus journey time between Bradford Interchange and Odsal Top is 14 minutes in the evening peak and 12 minutes at other times. The express bus service is about three minutes quicker. Average journey times for outbound stopping services fell by more than one minute in the evening peak period (10 per cent) and by more than two minutes (16 per cent) in the evening peak hour. The express service achieved a slightly greater improvement, whereas average outbound car journey times were largely unchanged. Variability in bus and car journey times declined in the evening peak period. There were insubstantial changes to average times for outbound buses and cars in the inter-peak. Differences between journey times by car and bus have been reduced. However, stopping buses remain more than two minutes slower in the peak and five minutes slower in the inter-peak. Although there is no direct evidence, the new signal controlled pedestrian crossings and speed limit changes are likely to have increased journey times for all forms of transport. Bus patronage In August 2001, First launched its ’Overground’ network in Bradford. This boosted bus use and made comparison of the ’before’ and ’after’ figures difficult. The analysis was based on electronic ticket machine (ETM) data and on bus occupancy counts. The number of passengers boarding buses on the length of the corridor directly affected by the scheme between Odsal and the city centre grew by between 7 and 10 per cent: more than on other corridors into Bradford. Both data sources indicate modest growth in the morning peak and inter-peak periods. There was growth of about 20 per cent in the afternoon inter-peak and of 10 per cent in the evening peak. Reduced delays Most inbound time savings in the morning peak hour were achieved in two locations on the corridor. These were the guided busway approach to the Mayo Avenue junction, where one minute was saved, and the right turn into Croft Street at the ’city’ end of the corridor, which saved 30 seconds. Together these accounted for 10 per cent of scheduled bus journey time between Odsal Top and Bradford Interchange. The majority of outbound evening peak time savings were achieved by the guided busway north of Mayo Avenue on the approach to the Mayo Avenue roundabout, with a saving of one and a half minutes or 12 per cent of scheduled bus running time from the city centre to Odsal Top.

- 81 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Conclusions
Implementation of the Manchester Road guided busway scheme as part of the South Bradford Quality Bus Initiative resulted in increased bus patronage, reduced delays to buses, reduced peak bus journey times and reduced peak traffic flows.

Acknowledgements
This was produced with the assistance of City of Bradford MDC, Metro and First. Further information can be obtained from the City of Bradford MDC Transportation, Design and Planning Department on: 01274 437418. Other examples A61 Scott Hall Road Corridor, Leeds. Contact Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department on: 0113 247 7500. A64 York Road / A63 Selby Road, Leeds. Contact Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department on: 0113 247 7500. Kesgrave Connection, Ipswich. Contact Suffolk County Council, Environment and Transport on: 01473 583305. Fastway (Crawley/Gatwick/Horley) phased opening Summer 2003 to Summer 2005. Contact West Sussex Highways and Transport Department on: 01243 777273. Alternatively, information can be obtained from the following web site: www.fastway.info/

Further information
The Transport and Works Act provides guidance on the need for an Order. The Transport and Works Act was not used for the Bradford scheme. However, as all the works were within the highway boundary, it was possible to rely on Traffic Regulation Orders for authorisation. There is no formal published design guidance for guided busways. The Buses and Taxis Division of the Department of Transport issued a Briefing Note on Guided Buses in 1995 and numerous articles have appeared in the technical press. The following documents may also be of interest: Daugherty GG and Balcombe RJ, Leeds Guided Bus way Study, Transport Research Laboratory, 1999. DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997.

- 82 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Pre signals and bus advance areas
Bus priority at traffic signals, whilst maintaining junction capacity, is often a contentious issue. The use of pre signals or bus advance areas is an emerging bus priority measure, which has proved successful at various locations around the UK. Traditionally, the end of a bus lane has been set back a short distance from a junction to enable buses to move between lanes, to cater for left turning traffic and allow for the maximum throughput of all vehicles through the junction. This traditional arrangement is shown below.

Traditional bus lane set back
Traditional bus lane set back Traditional bus lane set back Pre signals work by holding general traffic at traffic signals set back a short distance from the junction, usually at the end of a designated bus lane. This creates a bus advance area where, while general traffic is held back at these signals, buses are given a green signal allowing them to proceed to the main junction and take whichever lane they need. Pre signals placed at the end of a bus lane also allow buses to bypass queues and have priority at main junctions.

Pre signals junction layout
Pre signals junction layout Pre signals junction layout To ensure junction capacity loss is minimised, pre signals are synchronised with the main signals. This means that traffic is released from the pre signals just before the main signals turn green ensuring that full use is made of the green signal. The use of vehicle detection technologies at pre signals is also an option for minimising delays to general traffic in the absence of vehicles in the bus lane. This kind of system would stop general traffic at the pre signals only if a bus was approaching.

Advantages of pre signals over unsignalled setbacks
The two main advantages are as follows: prevents abuse of the bus lane; and useful where buses need to weave into an outside lane to turn right.

Disadvantages of pre signals
There are a number of disadvantages associated with the use of pre signals: bus delays off-peak; buses that arrive during vehicle green may have a choice between using the traffic lane and getting green or using the pre signal and waiting a cycle;

- 83 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

a bus stop in the wrong place may make it hard to achieve benefit i.e. if a bus stop is placed just before the signals then it is not possible to avoid the bus stopping at a red signal; and pedestrians may be tempted to cross in the wrong place if there are signals and an island in place. Some of the above disadvantages can, however, be overcome with good design and vehicle detection.

Types of bus pre signals
The University of Southampton’s Transport Research Group have identified three main categories of pre signals that can be used to provide priority to buses at busy junctions: Category A Category A pre signals are described as those where buses are not controlled by a pre signal, whereas general traffic is. This means that while traffic is held at the pre signals, buses can proceed straight to the main junction uncontrolled. However when the general traffic has a green signal, buses will have to give way to the main traffic flow. Category B With category B pre signals buses are controlled in the same way as general traffic, so buses have priority when general traffic is held at a red pre signal and vice versa. Category C Category C pre signals are defined as those that use vehicle detection to activate the pre signals and give priority to approaching buses. This would mean that delays to general traffic may be minimised as they are only stopped if an approaching bus is detected. Once a bus is detected and the general traffic has been stopped at the pre signals, the bus can then proceed to the main junction without delay.

Bus advance areas at roundabouts
Bus priority at roundabouts can be given through creating bus advance areas incorporating pre signals before the give way line at the entry point to the roundabout. As with pre signals, general traffic is held at the end of a bus lane by pre signals while buses can proceed to the roundabout give way line without delay. This system gives buses time to position themselves in the correct lane to complete their required manoeuvre when entering the roundabout. The type of pre signals that may be used in any particular area are subject to local conditions as not all categories are suitable in all situations. The cost implications and available technologies need to be considered as part of a package of bus priority measures. The following case studies provide examples of different pre signals schemes, differing in technology and complexity.

- 84 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Case study: Shepherd’s Bush
This is an early example of the use of pre signals as part of a package of bus priority measures aimed at reducing congestion and the negative environmental impact of heavy traffic flows. Pre signals were installed in 1993 at the end of a 24-hour bus lane on the south side of Shepherd’s Bush Common. These signals stop general traffic and allow buses to carry on to the main junction and position themselves in the correct lane. This is particularly useful for buses needing to make a right turn at the main signals. When the pre signals are red, buses are free to move ahead of the general traffic. However, once the pre signal is green any buses emerging from the bus lane will have to give way to the main traffic flow. The timing of the pre signals is such that general traffic is released shortly before the main signal turns green and return to red just before the main signal to ensure that the bus advance area is clear for the buses during the next cycle. A study carried out by TRL involved before and after surveys of the scheme to identify the effects of the overall package of measures on buses travelling through Shepherd’s Bush. Shepherd’s Bush bus priority measures. Shepherd’s Bush bus priority measures. Reproduced with the permission from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham The previous diagram shows the area and the bus priority measures implemented in 1993. The results of the before and after surveys carried out by TRL are given in the table below. It shows changes in bus journey times (seconds) for buses travelling between points A and B on the above diagram, incorporating both the bus lane and pre signals. The results of the before and after surveys carried out by TRL The results show a considerable reduction in journey times for buses along this stretch after the implementation of the bus priority measures. It is not possible to attribute a specific time saving to the pre signals as the timesavings are as a result of a combination of measures, however, it is considered that the pre signals do contribute considerably.

Case study: York
Hull Road pre signals Inbound pre signals, Hull Road, York Hull Road pre signals Inbound pre signals, Hull Road, York As a Centre of Excellence for Integrated Transport Planning, the City of York has a range of bus priority measures in place to reduce bus journey times. Pre signals are one of the measures used to achieve this.

- 85 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Pre signals on A1079 Hull Road were introduced in 1997 as part of a package of measures linked to the opening of a park and ride site at Grimston Bar. These signals were installed to give priority to buses at the end of a bus lane, allowing them to re-enter the carriageway where it is reduced from a double to a single carriageway on the way into the city centre. The pre signals here are connected to the city’s UTC system and can be used to regulate traffic flow and ease congestion on this busy route by holding the pre signals on green for buses. This therefore acts as a queue management system. The bus priority measures on this stretch of road have had a positive impact on bus journey times. On the Grimston Bar park and ride route for example, buses have a peak hour advantage of between 4 and 12 minutes over cars as a result of the package of priority measures. This facility has the potential to be used as a gate to hold traffic out of the more congested parts of the A1079 into the city. This facility is used at inbound peak times. The overall effect on car traffic should be negligible, as the increase in delay at the pre signals should be offset by the increased efficiency at the signalised junctions upstream.

Case study: Perth
In 2000, a number of bus priority measures were installed as part of corridor improvements on the Stagecoach route number 7 in Perth. These improvements included the installation of bus lanes, bus only streets and selective vehicle detection (SVD) at traffic signals. Pre signals were installed on Glasgow Road bus lane to allow buses to bypass queuing traffic on this busy road. The pre signals enable buses to re-enter the general traffic flow at the end of the bus lane and also controls access to the bus advance area at the main signals. Glasgow Road pre signals Glasgow Road pre signals. Reproduced with the permission from Perth and Kinross Council Buses leaving the bus stop near the bottom of the bus lane are detected through SVD technology and the pre signals are triggered stopping general traffic and allowing buses to enter the bus advance area. Bus reliability has improved and patronage has increased by over 50 per cent due to the introduction of these measures and the new and improved bus services. This scheme has been further developed and the extension of the bus lane is an ongoing project.

Case study: Leeds
The East Leeds Quality Bus Initiative incorporates the use of pre signals with a guided busway to give priority to buses approaching the city centre along the A64. The guided bus scheme involves a central reservation bus guideway between two busy signalised junctions on the inbound route which brings buses into conflict with general traffic when they cross from the central reservation to the general traffic flow and then cross back over again to a bus lane. Pre signals are used here to facilitate this cross over and ensure the safety of all road users. Being signals associated with a bus guideway, special white ’arrow’ aspects were authorised by DfT to replace the normal green aspects for buses.

- 86 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

General traffic along this route is stopped only at the pre signals, to give buses priority, and not at the main signals further along the route with which the pre signals are coordinated. This is sensible from a safety point of view as this is a busy 40 mph road and it would be less safe to have a number of unexpected signal changes. A64 Pre signals A64 Pre signals The signals here are coordinated by SPRUCE, a software based Bus and Tram Priority tool that was developed by Leeds City Council as part of a Government sponsored initiative. This system works within the city’s UTC system and allows for the selective detection of priority vehicles. Once a priority vehicle has been detected approaching a junction, SPRUCE adjusts the fixed time signal cycle to allow the bus to pass through the junction and then returns to the fixed time cycle. This is achieved by using different strategies depending on the bus arrival time. The use of SPRUCE gives an advantage to buses at all times of day, but it is particularly advantageous in off-peak hours when it might otherwise be quicker for buses to use the general traffic lanes. The average delay to buses in the off-peak, resulting from this signal priority, was reduced from 32 seconds to 8 seconds. It has been noted that the use of dynamic priority (using priority vehicle detection to alter signal timings) can be far preferable to static priority (timings not responsive at all times of day), because buses can more often be granted higher priority with less effect on general traffic. Pre signals are used in other areas of Leeds, for example they are used at the end of the A647 Stanningley Road High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, which is used as the case study for the HOV leaflet.

References
High performance bus/tram signal priority, JCT Symposium 2004. Local Transport Note 1/97 Keeping Buses Moving, 1997. Miscellaneous Bus Priority System Investigations, Final Report to the Traffic Control Systems Unit Corporation of London, Transportation Research Group, University of Southampton, 1995. Performance of Bus Priority Measures in Shepherds Bush, TRL Report 140, 1995. Wu, J and Hounsell, NB, Bus Priority Using Pre-Signals, University of Southampton, 1998.

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgement is given for the assistance provided by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, City of York Council, Perth and Kinross Council and Leeds City Council.

- 87 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Further information
For further information on the case studies contained in this leaflet contact: Mike Gilroy, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham on 020 8753 3050 (Shepherd’s Bush). Darren Capes (Network Management), City of York Council on 01904 551651. Scott Denyer (Urban Traffic Control) Perth and Kinross Council on 01738 476517. Mervyn Hallworth (Urban Traffic Management & Control), Leeds City Council on 0113 2476750 or Mervyn.Hallworth@Leeds.gov.uk

Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD)
Background
Bus operation is becoming more sophisticated. Methods of providing priority to buses at traffic signals have been available at isolated junctions for many years; one of the first trials was in Swansea in the late 1970s. More recently, priority to individual vehicles has been provided for coordinated traffic signal control in SCOOT, a control strategy for traffic signals in urban areas. Bus management systems allow operators to track and monitor their buses against the timetable or scheduled headway. Information from the systems can be provided to the public in the form of real time passenger information, through various means: bus stop displays; SMS messages to individual subscribers; and web sites etc. Such sophisticated systems provide opportunities for better services to the travelling public. In the case of bus priority systems, as well as reducing passengers’ travel times, the quicker bus journeys may lead to operational savings for the operator or the ability to increase service frequencies with the same number of vehicles. This leaflet describes the technologies that are available to enable bus priority and bus management and information systems.

Bus location
To provide priority at traffic signals to individual vehicles, the controller needs to know that the vehicle is approaching the signals. Usually the selected individual vehicles will be buses, but other vehicles such as trams and emergency vehicles also require priority at traffic signals. Similarly, real time passenger information systems need to know the location of vehicles. There are two basic ways of providing the information about vehicle location: 1. Selectively detect vehicles at particular points on the road network, often requiring communication between equipment on the vehicle and at the roadside. 2. The vehicle has an on-board means of locating its position and reports it to a vehicle management system.

- 88 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The first method is commonly referred to as Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD), and the second as Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). The objective of SVD and AVL systems is to provide vehicle location information as required by the bus priority and bus management and information systems that are in use. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages.

SVD technologies
There are several technologies that can provide selective vehicle detection: long vehicle inductive loops; vehicle inductive loop detector signal processing; video image processing; infra-red transmitter and receiver; microwave transmitter and receiver; and inductive loop and transponder. The first three methods are all passive; there is no active participation in the detection process by the vehicle or equipment on it. Passive detection is attractive as it eliminates the need to equip a large fleet of vehicles. The first method using long loops can be made to detect full-size buses reliably, but it will detect other long vehicles and will not detect smaller buses. Historically the method has been rejected on these grounds. In mixed traffic, two new intelligent vehicle detectors PRISM and FOOTPRINT, work by processing the signal from an inductive loop detector to recognise a specific vehicle. The technology is suitable for giving the same level of priority to all vehicles of the same type, but it cannot provide different levels of priority to a particular bus, for example - only to late-running buses. It also cannot provide information on individual vehicles for information and management purposes. The technique would be particularly appropriate at isolated bus only facilities, such as the entrance or exit of a park and ride site, where the expense of on-vehicle equipment on all buses that might be used on the service would be hard to justify for use at a very few sites. No independent verification of the performance of the detectors is known. Video image processing would require considerable development to provide a reliable system to work under all urban conditions. No-one has so far undertaken the necessary investment to develop a commercial system for bus detection in urban areas. Infra-red equipment is allowed to transmit continuously as it is not subject to radio transmission regulations and a transmitter on a bus could continuously transmit its presence to be detected by suitable roadside receivers. Unfortunately, the infra-red communication requires line-of sight transmission and a study in London in the 1980s concluded that to provide reliable detection would require many high mounted receivers. The cost of regularly cleaning them, to maintain reliable operation, would be prohibitive because of the difficulty of access. Infra-red detectors are used in North America for both bus priority and signal pre-emption for emergency vehicles, where a high degree of priority is required, however there has been considerable disquiet recently about the use of un-encoded infra-red and the sale to private motorists of signal pre-emption transmitters.

- 89 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Microwave transmitters and receivers have similar problems with mounting to avoid obscuration; this system can also be problematic as mobile microwave equipment is not allowed to transmit continuously. The bus equipment would, therefore, have to be a transponder and only transmit in response to a signal from the roadside. Vehicle mounted transponders that work with inductive loops have been available for a long time; but as with all loop detectors, the loop and feeder are susceptible to damage. Despite the vulnerability of the loops, inductive loop transponder systems are the SVD technology used in the majority of bus priority networks in the UK. Self contained transponders with a unique ID number do not need connecting to the vehicle electrical system and so are quick and cheap to install. To obtain information about the service that the vehicle is running on, however, requires connection to the vehicle systems, usually the electronic ticketing machine. Both types are available.

AVL technologies
The technologies available for in-vehicle units in AVL systems are: Global Positioning System (GPS) General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Fixed reference points Odometer (milometer) Door open and close indicator Many of the commercial AVL systems currently operational in the UK use GPS for their location. A GPS tracking device on the bus communicates by private mobile radio to the central system and a link to the electronic ticketing machine can provide additional information on the current route. However, until 2000, accuracy of the positioning without correction of the deliberate error in the system was a problem. The error has since been removed and commercial GPS is now accurate to ± 3 metres. Where GPS reception is poor, it may be supplemented with a reading from the odometer. In addition, it is possible to take an input from the door operating mechanism to indicate when a bus has arrived at a stop and when it has left it. For bus priority, a second communication channel is usually provided for direct transmission of bus priority requests to traffic signal controllers. Global Packet Radio Service (GPRS) is a wireless communication service for data using the mobile phone network. It is used alongside GPS technology to provide accurate vehicle location data and instant communication between the vehicle and the real time information system, by allowing faster access to bus service information. AVL systems can also use fixed reference points, such as bus stop indicators or special beacons, route maps and dead reckoning from the odometer. The complexity of the system will be reflected in the cost of the system.

- 90 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Requirements for bus priority
The basic requirement for bus priority is that the location system should provide accurate information when a bus is at the specified point where bus priority is requested. This point will normally be 10 to 15 seconds bus journey time before the junction, unless there is an intermediate bus stop. Where there is a bus stop close to the junction, the priority request point will be immediately after that bus stop. If the location is subject to error, then the priority request point will have to be moved sufficiently downstream of the bus stop to ensure that the bus will actually have left the stop when the AVL says that it is at the priority request point. The benefits of the bus priority will be degraded if the priority request point has to be moved too close to the junction.

Requirements for bus management and information
Locational information is required at a sufficient frequency to provide good bus management and passenger information. The exact requirement will depend on the user, but the minimum is likely to be arrival and/or departure from each bus stop to an accuracy of better than one minute.

Capabilities of SVD and AVL
Capabilities of SVD and AVL Common disadvantages The main disadvantage of any system that uses on-bus equipment is that operators move buses between routes, between towns and between regions. If different highway authorities use different systems, the SVD or AVL equipment on a bus may not be compatible with the system to which the bus has been re-assigned. This can also be a particular problem with longer distance inter-urban services that cross one or more highway authority boundary. Problems of inter-operability are being addressed for AVL. When a standard is produced it will be important to follow it.

Applications
The bus priority case study on non AVL Bus SCOOT in this series gives a good example of the application of SVD. Similarly the case study on Bus SCOOT with AVL in Cardiff provides an example of the use of AVL technology. Another good example is the system started in Brighton in 2001. This is a joint project between Brighton & Hove Bus Company, who run 250 buses, and Brighton & Hove City Council, and was the first in the UK to equip an entire fleet, rather than just selected routes. The system uses a combination of the odometer reading and the door mechanism, supplemented by GPS to ensure the accuracy of information relayed to the 100 real time signs throughout the City. The benefit for the Bus Company’s controllers in being able to see the location of every bus has been enormous; they can now make much more informed decisions about maintaining service frequencies during traffic delays. Messages can be sent to the real time information signs to inform passengers about traffic problems, and this is regularly used to very good effect. The system stores historic data which

- 91 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

compares how buses performed in reality compared with their timetable; this enables timetables to be adjusted to further improve reliability. The City Council is now building on the system; a website showing real time bus information will be in operation this autumn and a real time mobile phone text messaging service will begin in early 2005.

Useful sources of information
Bowen, GT, Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 255, Crowthorne, 1997. Bus passenger information system in London: www.transportforlondon.gov.uk Chandler, MJH and Cook, DJ, Traffic control studies in London: SCOOT and bus detection, 13th PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, PTRC Education and Research Services, July 1985. Cooper, BR, Vincent, RA and Wood, K, Bus-actuated traffic signals - initial assessment of part of the Swansea bus priority scheme, TRL Laboratory Report LR925, Crowthorne, 1980. Hill, R, Maxwell, A and Bretherton, D, Real time passenger information and bus priority in Cardiff: bus priority trial, Proceedings of the AET European Transport Conference, PTRC Education and Research Services, 2001. Review of current data requirements and detector technologies and the implications for UTMC. Deliverable 2 from the UTMC26 project: Increasing the value of road and roadside detectors. Available from: http://www.utmc.gov.uk/utmc26/pdf/d2v9d.pdf Testing of Different Bus Detectors for Traffic Signal Priority in Helsinki: www.hel.fi/ksv/entire/repBusDetectors.htm Use of TIRIS transponders for bus priority: http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/primavera/tiris.html

MOVA Description of need
Background MOVA stands for Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation. It is a signal control strategy that alters traffic signal timings in response to actual traffic conditions at isolated junctions. Inductive loops on the approach to the signals allow MOVA to allocate the optimum green time to the different traffic movements. The system can be programmed to reduce the waiting time of the priority vehicle. MOVA is used by almost all authorities having responsibility for traffic signals and it is a requirement on new signal installations and major refurbishment of trunk roads. Approximately 600 junctions in the UK use MOVA and the installation rate is over 100 per year. Emergency and priority vehicle signal control is implemented fully within MOVA.

- 92 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The trials at Winchester were carried out as part of the MOVA Developments project, carried out by TRL Limited under contract to the Traffic Management Division of the DfT. Problems The park and ride car park site is located off a busy road fed from the nearby M3 motorway exit. Additional traffic as a result of the park and ride site has caused congestion in the vicinity of the junction and caused delay to the buses. Objectives The main objective of the scheme is to reduce delays to park and ride buses whilst keeping delays to general traffic to a minimum.

Scheme details
Description MOVA Bus Priority was implemented by using Selective Vehicle Detectors (SVDs) of the long loop type which distinguish buses from most other vehicles. Implementation date September 1997. Cost £5,000 including the MOVA control unit and labour for cutting the detector loops. Consultation The DfT initiated the project with TRL to implement bus priority using MOVA. TRL consulted with a number of authorities to find suitable sites and Hampshire County Council identified Bar End Road as a possibility. Hampshire County Council agreed to fit MOVA at the site and for TRL to carry out the study. Bus operator Stagecoach. Bus frequency Average bus frequency is approximately every 7½ minutes.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme

- 93 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys Before and after surveys were carried out during 1997. Types of surveys Journey times of buses travelling through the junction were recorded over a two day period, both with and without the priority control operating for comparative purposes. Bus arrival and departure times were recorded at the Bar End Road approaches and exits.

Results
Results Traffic flows No change in traffic flows occurred with the introduction of the MOVA Bus Priority scheme. Journey times The best result occurred in the morning peak when bus delays were reduced by 24.1 seconds (a 54 per cent benefit), with smaller but still significant benefits at other times. System performance Over all the sites assessed in the project, Bus Priority within MOVA has been shown to work effectively without necessarily introducing major delays to other traffic. At Bar End Road the results were considered to be good. However, benefits at other locations will depend on specific site characteristics, particularly the position of bus stops in relation to the junction and whether or not conflicting signal stages have bus routes with high bus flows. Possible scheme amendments The Park and ride scheme is being extended to involve another junction and MOVA will be replaced by an extension to the Urban Traffic Control system.

Conclusions
The scheme has been operating very successfully for over two years proving that, in certain circumstances, MOVA Bus Priority offers features needed both to give priority to buses and to prevent excessive disruption to other traffic.

- 94 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

References
Vincent, RA, MOVA Developments: Final Report, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PR/TT/001/99, Crowthorne, 1999.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of the MOVA Development Group and Mr A Gray of the Environment Department of Hampshire County Council, who arranged for the installation and operation of the trial bus priority site at Bar End Road.

Other examples
Hanworth, South West London Contact the traffic team on: traffic@hounslow.gov.uk Merton, South London Contact Transport Services (Environmental Services Department) on: 020 8545 4794.

Further information
Department for Transport, Highways Agency, Installation Guide for MOVA, MCH 1542 Issue C, May 2003.

Bus SCOOT
Description of need
Background The ’split cycle offset optimisation technique’ - or SCOOT - is an urban traffic control (UTC) system. The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) developed SCOOT in collaboration with UK traffic system suppliers. Today, TRL, Peek Traffic and Siemens Traffic Control jointly own SCOOT. SCOOT responds automatically to traffic fluctuations, so expensive signal plans are unnecessary. This makes SCOOT an efficient tool for managing traffic on roads that use traffic signals. Over 170 towns and cities in the UK now use SCOOT. Bus SCOOT is a facility incorporated into SCOOT to give priority to buses. To use Bus SCOOT an authority must install devices for letting SCOOT know where the buses are e.g. loops or detectors. The Uxbridge Road is a strategically significant radial road running from Uxbridge town centre to Shepherds Bush in west London. It is 22km long and runs through three London boroughs. A bus route runs the entire length of the Uxbridge Road in two overlapping sections, and there is also a limited stop express route. At peak times there are over 20 buses an hour in each direction on these two routes, and over 60,000 people travel on them every day.

- 95 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Problems The Uxbridge Road suffers from severe traffic congestion throughout its length. Physical bus priority measures were introduced as part of a demonstration project from 1993 to 1996. These measures gave a four minute reduction in bus journey times. Bus patronage also increased considerably during this time period. However buses still suffered delays from traffic signals, and therefore further measures were needed to alleviate this. Objectives The Uxbridge Road scheme was part of the London field trials, which also included schemes for Twickenham and Edgware Road. The trials aimed to evaluate a number of integrated strategies at the three test sites. London Buses initiated the scheme with the Traffic Control Systems Unit (TCSU): now Traffic Technology Systems (TTS) of Transport for London. The Transportation Research Group, the University of Southampton and TRL Limited subsequently joined the study.

Scheme details
Description The scheme tested was Bus SCOOT (as incorporated in SCOOT 4.1), running on the Uxbridge Road. It did not use automatic vehicle location (AVL). Implementation date The scheme was introduced in 1998. Costs The estimated cost of the scheme is £80,000 a year. It has the potential to save £200,000 a year. Consultation As these were field trials, a public consultation exercise was not carried out. Bus operators London Buses operates services along the Uxbridge Road. Bus frequency An average of 23 buses an hour run along the route.

- 96 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys On-street trials were carried out on the Uxbridge Road over a five week period in May and June 1998. Types of surveys The trials tested the following strategies for one week each: SCOOT; Bus SCOOT with extensions only; Bus SCOOT with extensions and low degree of saturation recall; and Bus SCOOT with extensions and high degree of saturation recall. The strategies - an explanation of terms Extensions only - if traffic signals are on green when a bus arrives, the time the signals are on green is extended to allow the bus to proceed. Extensions and low/high degree of saturation recall - if traffic signals are on red when a bus arrives, Bus SCOOT looks at the other signal arms and decides whether to recall the green for the bus. Whether the green is recalled depends on the priority (low or high) assigned for this to occur. A low degree of saturation recall means that a low priority is given to the green recall for the bus over other signal arms. Conversely, a high degree of saturation recall means that a high priority is given to the green recall for the bus over other signal arms. Automatic data collection facilities were backed up by on-street measurement where necessary. The comprehensive database compiled as a result included most or all of the following for each strategy: automatic recording of bus identities and detection times, using palmtop computers installed in traffic signal controllers; automatic recording of traffic flows, delays and congestion using the ASTRID database, which automatically collects and stores traffic information from SCOOT for display or analysis; automatic recording of signal status and strategy actions i.e. bus priority to confirm that the system is working properly and to provide core data to explain what effect the system has on buses and general traffic; automatic traffic counts providing data for twelve main roads and side road links; manual recording of registration numbers for buses and a sample of cars at each end of the corridor, to provide journey times; queue length and traffic flow measurements on key side roads; and data on events such as system failures.

- 97 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Results
Results Traffic flows The introduction of Bus SCOOT had no effect on traffic flows. Journey times Automatic recording logged some 25,000 bus journeys. The results indicate statistically significant savings in average bus delay and in delay variability of up to 20 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. System performance Bus SCOOT worked effectively during the demonstration project, as it had in previous surveys. The scheme did not record details of bus patronage and there were no issues regarding enforcement. Nor were there any effects of the scheme other than those recorded. One possible change to the scheme would be the use of automatic vehicle detection systems.

Conclusions
Network capacity The bus priority strategies used on the Uxbridge Road are expected to have an insignificant effect on the network’s overall capacity. None of the strategies involve any physical measures or reallocation of road space. Bus SCOOT temporarily changes capacity at individual signal junctions when bus priority is in operation. However, with no stage skipping (stages run through in numerical order), and with green time compensation to non-priority stages, (stages not giving priority to buses are compensated for any loss of green time while priority is given to the link with priority), the average length of each stage (and hence capacity) remains largely unchanged. Travel time and delay All the priority strategies evaluated here have mainly affected travel time and delay. Buses operating with Bus SCOOT experience average delay savings of between 7 and 20 per cent between sites in London, with no significant effect on other traffic. Reliability and regularity All of the priority strategies in London have produced a saving in bus journey time reliability, expressed by the standard deviation of the journey times. The different strategies have recorded savings of between 4 and 13 per cent.

- 98 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

References
Bretherton, RD & Harrison, MEJ, Evaluation of SCOOT Bus Priority Field Trials, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/036/99, Crowthorne, 1999.

Acknowledgements
This was produced with the assistance of the University of Southampton, London Transport Buses and Transport for London. For further information contact TfL Bus Priority team on: 020 7960 6763.

Other examples
The SCOOT web site contains references to other successful implementations of SCOOT. The web address is: www.scoot-utc.com

Further information
To use Bus SCOOT on a network SCOOT 4.1 must installed and in use. Other information and guidance can be found in: DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 7/99, SCOOT URBAN CONTROL SYSTEM. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/00, Bus Priority in SCOOT. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/01, Bus Priority. Bowen GT, Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 255, Crowthorne, 1997. Bretherton RD, Bowen GT, Harrison MEJ and Langford SL, Scope for Enhancing Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/197/96, Crowthorne, 1996. Bretherton RD and Wall GT, Review of Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/121/95, Crowthorne, 1995. Bretherton RD, Baker KA and Harrison MEJ, Public Transport Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/039/99, Crowthorne, 1999. Bretherton RD and Harrison MEJ, Evaluation of SCOOT Bus Priority Field Trials, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/036/99, Crowthorne, 1999. Gardener K and Metzger D, Uxbridge Road bus priority demonstration project, Proceedings of Seminar K (Traffic Management & Road Safety), pp. 63 - 74, 25th PTRC European Transport Forum, 1997. PROMPT: Field Trial and simulation results of bus priority in SCOOT, 8th International Conference (IEE) on Road Traffic Monitoring & Control, pp. 90 - 94, 1996.

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)

- 99 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Description of need
Background The ’split cycle offset optimisation technique’ - or SCOOT - is an urban traffic control (UTC) system that the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) developed in collaboration with UK traffic system suppliers. SCOOT responds automatically to traffic conditions, altering signal settings to optimise junction operation so expensive updating of fixed time signal plans is unnecessary. This makes SCOOT an efficient tool for managingtraffic on roads that use traffic signals. Over 170 towns and cities in the UK now use SCOOT. Bus SCOOT is a facility incorporated into SCOOT to give priority to buses. In order for priority to be given, SCOOT must be informed about the location of buses. One means of doing this is using information from an Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system. There are two ways of providing AVL: the first is by using differential Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, and the second by using a beacon based system. Cardiff uses GPS technology. Most bus AVL systems in the UK allow the location of a bus to be compared against a schedule and, in this way, priority can be provided depending on a bus’s adherence to schedule. In the Cardiff system, for instance, it is possible to give priority only to those buses that are running behind schedule. Problems In common with many other cities, Cardiff has seen significant growth in the use of the private car with traffic levels increasing by over 55 per cent since 1987. With only limited road capacity available, this is resulting in delays to all vehicles and consequent congestion and gaseous pollution. Objectives The overall aim in Cardiff is to secure a move to multimodal transport with an emphasis on public transport. The specific objectives of the Cardiff trial were to: ⢠reduce the delays to buses and improve their adherence to schedule using the SCOOT bus priority facility interfaced to an AVL system; and ⢠Test and evaluate the provision of priority only to buses running behind schedule.

Scheme details
Description The scheme tested was Bus SCOOT using AVL to inform SCOOT about the location of buses. The AVL facility was part of a real-time passenger information system that makes use of GPS technology. An on-board computer and GPS receiver tracks the bus’s location and a bus priority request is transmitted to SCOOT from the bus when a predefined location, stored in the on-board computer, is reached.

- 100 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The SCOOT AVL system in Cardiff concentrated on the northern corridor of the city and is the largest GPS based bus priority and real time passenger information system to be installed in the UK. 25 per cent of the city’s buses and 49 signalised junctions were included in the initial scheme. Implementation date The scheme was introduced in 1999. Cost The cost of the system depends on the method of bus detection. If there is an existing (AVL) system which is used for bus management and passenger information purposes (as in Cardiff), the additional cost of providing the information to SCOOT can be small (dependent on the type of AVL system). If there is no AVL system then there is an additional infrastructure cost for detection (for example - all buses equipped with transponders plus a bus loop installed on each approach where bus priority is required). Consultation Extensive consultation took place between Cardiff County Council and the main bus operator, Cardiff Bus, regarding planning and implementation of the scheme. Bus operator The main bus operator is Cardiff Bus. Bus frequency There were average bus flows of between 16 and 40 buses per hour through the junctions in the scheme.

Illustration of scheme
The survey area covered the ’Northern Corridor’ from just south of Caerphilly Road/Beulah Road in the North, to just past High Street/Castle Street in the South. Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys Trials were carried out by TRL over an eight week period in Autumn 2000. Due to some technical problems the amount of data collected was lower than planned. Consequently further trials were held over an eleven week period in Spring 2001. The strategies monitored were alternated on a weekly basis. Types of surveys

- 101 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Three strategies were surveyed: SCOOT without bus priority; SCOOT with priority enabled for all buses; and SCOOT with priority enabled only for buses running more than one minute behind schedule.

Results
Evaluation was significantly affected by events and technical problems encountered during the trial. In the AM peak when priority was given to all buses there was an average reduction in delay to buses of 4 seconds per bus per junction and an average reduction in lateness of 70 seconds. With priority given to only those buses behind schedule there was a reduction in delay to buses of 3 seconds per bus per junction and a reduction in lateness of 92 seconds. These results are in line with the benefits normally expected to be provided by Bus SCOOT. Providing priority only to buses behind schedule reduced the number of priority events and hence the number of times that general traffic was disrupted. Traffic flows Despite the advantages to bus operations, no decrease or increase in traffic flows was noted due to the introduction of this scheme. System performance The Cardiff system demonstrated that active priority can be provided to buses on-street using the SCOOT bus priority facility interfaced with an AVL system. However, while the functionality of the SCOOT/ AVL interface has been shown, the potential benefits of bus priority in this particular instance were significantly affected by operational and technical problems. These problems were mostly due to: the high level of co-ordination required between different stakeholders; the number of interfaces between different systems; a lack of formal monitoring procedures; and the complexity of the systems combined with the relatively new use of the technology. Measures to reduce the impact of these factors are required for the successful implementation of an AVL bus priority system. These include: providing value adding facilities for the bus companies; training and information for drivers; and formal performance and fault monitoring procedures, all of which have been improved in Cardiff since the completion of the trial.

Conclusions
The success of the scheme has meant that 90 to 95 per cent of the city’s buses are now equipped with bus priority technology. The scheme has been expanded to cover 120 junctions.

- 102 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

References
Bowen, GT, Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 255, Crowthorne, 1997. Bretherton, RD, Bowen, GT, Harrison, MEJ & Langford, SL, Scope for Enhancing Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/197/96, Crowthorne, 1996. Bretherton, RD & Wall, GT, Review of Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/121/95, Crowthorne, 1995. Bretherton, RD, Baker, KA & Harrison, MEJ, Public Transport Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/039/99, Crowthorne,1999. Bretherton, RD & Harrison, MEJ, Evaluation of SCOOT Bus Priority Field Trials, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/036/99, Crowthorne, 1999. Bretherton, RD, Maxwell, A & Wood, K, Provision of differential priority within SCOOT: Final Report, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PR/T/025/03, Crowthorne, 2003.

Acknowledgements
This document was produced with the assistance of Cardiff County Council, ACIS, and Cardiff Bus. In particular, Reg Hill, Bill Cokeley, Graham Morris, and David Kinnaird of Cardiff County Council, Craig Gulliford of ACIS, and Geoff Blewden of Cardiff Bus. For further information, contact Dave Bretherton: dbretherton@trl.co.uk, or Keith Wood: kwood@trl.co.uk For further information regarding Cardiff Bus, contact enquiries@cardiffbus.com or go to www.cardiffbus.com

Other examples
The SCOOT web site contains references to other successful implementations of SCOOT, the web address is: www.scoot-utc.com

Further information
To use Bus SCOOT on a network, SCOOT V3.1 (or more recent version) must be installed and in use. Other information and guidance can be found in: DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 7/99, SCOOT Urban Control System. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/00, Bus Priority in SCOOT. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/01, Bus Priority.

- 103 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Mixed priority street
Description of need
Background Rusholme is located approximately one mile from the centre of Manchester and is the largest and one of the busiest district centres in Manchester. There is a concentration of local retail activity, student facilities, visitor attractions and ethnic minority enterprise and employment in the centre. It is the most successful retail centre in Manchester outside the city centre and is the location for over 150 ethnic minority businesses. Rusholme is considered culturally vital to Asian communities in Manchester and the North West of England. Activity is not confined to daytime on weekdays; the district centre is also busy in evenings and at weekends. Wilmslow Road runs southwards from Manchester City Centre to the northern boundary with Stockport linking South Manchester and Manchester Airport with the city centre. Frontage properties include retail, residential, commercial and light industrial land uses. Closer to the city centre, Wilmslow Road also serves Manchester Royal Infirmary, St Mary’s Hospital, Whitworth Art Gallery and the city’s higher education precinct. Problems Before implementation of the improvements, Wilmslow Road was a single carriageway road with two lanes in each direction. The success of Rusholme district centre combined with limited opportunities for off-street parking and rear servicing of retail and commercial properties resulted in high levels of on-street parking and servicing on Wilmslow Road. Indiscriminate and illegal parking was common creating hazards for pedestrians and cyclists, impeding traffic flow, creating congestion and contributing to delay and unreliability for buses. The area became hazardous for pedestrians forced to cross between parked vehicles, particularly as the high level of pedestrian activity continues late into the night in Rusholme. Analysis of accident data for a period of three years before implementation of the scheme showed 136 reported injury accidents involving 178 personal injuries. Unusually, 44 per cent of accidents occurred during the hours of darkness and accounted for more than half of all the injuries to pedestrians. Wilmslow Road is one of the busiest bus routes in Greater Manchester. The high volume of traffic and the extensive on-street parking/servicing contributed to traffic congestion that, in turn, led to delay to buses, considerable variability in bus journey times and a negative perception of the reliability of public transport on the Wilmslow Road Corridor. Journey times for buses on the corridor have been increasing year-on-year for a number of years with the result that additional buses have had to be deployed to maintain reliability and punctuality. Wilmslow Road also has the largest volume of cyclists in the North West. The concentration of vulnerable users on Wilmslow Road led to casualty numbers steadily increasing from 47 in 1998 to 81 in 2000. The Manchester Universities jointly expressed their concern on behalf of students on the campus just to the north of Rusholme.

- 104 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Meetings between the Rusholme Traders Association and the City Council indicated that the existing traffic management in place in the area was not satisfactory and the situation was negatively affecting the perceptions of those visiting and driving through the area. Objectives The Rusholme scheme is about encouraging the vitality of Rusholme district centre, improving safety and making better use of the carriageway space available. The objectives include: ⢠reducing accidents; increasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists; managing parking; managing servicing for local businesses; improve reliability of bus services by reducing journey time variability; encourage the vibrant business activity in the area enhancing local trading viability; reducing congestion and the associated negative environmental consequences; and improving visitor perceptions of the area.

Scheme details
Description The scheme on Wilmslow Road reduced the four lane carriageway through the district centre to a single mixed use lane in each direction between Hathersage Road and Dickenson Road in order to allow the provision of defined servicing bays, parking bays and bus stops. The traffic lanes are narrow in order to inhibit inconsiderate parking. The remaining carriageway space was used to introduce horizontal alignment changes to reduce vehicle speeds and provide improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and bus passengers. The natural curvature of the road was exaggerated to encourage drivers to reduce their speed appropriately. Short unconnected sections of bus lane were removed from the core area and replaced by with-flow bus lanes with a minimum width of 4.0 metres on the northern and southern approaches to the core area terminating at transponder controlled signalised bus gates. This is the element of the scheme that is intended to provide priority for buses. The scheme embodies principles of traffic metering and queue relocation. The traffic signal installations at junctions at both ends of the district centre can be used to manage the flow of traffic through the centre. Peak period traffic queues on the northern and southern approaches to the district centre can be bypassed by buses using the bus lanes and bus gates. Bus stops were relocated to align with crossing facilities and areas with appropriate footpath space. Other additional measures included: raised kerbs and improvements to the bus stop environment to aid boarding; bus stops with shallow saw-tooth bus bays, conventional bus bays and bus boarders protected by red cordon markings and clearway orders; removal of short and discontinuous lengths of with-flow bus lane on Wilmslow Road in the district centre and implementation of longer lengths of with-flow bus lane terminating in bus gates on the

- 105 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

northern and southern approaches to the district centre; footway widening to allow a pedestrian clearway free of obstruction by street furniture; introduction of continuous full time cycle lanes; and a number of measures to enhance the character of the area including ’street art’ to reinforce the cultural identity of Rusholme, upgraded street furniture and improved street lighting. Three illustrations are provided - Figure 1 provides an overview of the scheme; Figure 2 provides a sketch layout of an area at the southern end of the scheme; and Figure 3 illustrates the layout on a section of Wilmslow Road in the district centre. Implementation date The mixed priority scheme on the section of Wilmslow Road between Hathersage Road at the northern end of the district centre and Platt Lane at the southern end was completed in September 2004. The with-flow bus lanes on the northern and southern approaches to the city centre were implemented shortly afterwards. 39 40 41 Costs Total scheme implementation cost was £2.0 million. The scheme was designated as a Safety Scheme Demonstration Project and attracted funding of £1.0 million from DETR (DfT) following a competitive bidding process. The balance of £1.0 million was funded from local resources. Consultation Initial informal consultation with ward members and officers of the Local Regeneration Partnership took place before consultation with the public and stakeholders. Advance consultation also took place between Manchester City Council, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive and Greater Manchester Police. A combination of methods of consultation with the public was used including: distribution of explanatory leaflets to all properties on Wilmslow Road with a contact facility for a translated version of the leaflet for non-English speaking residents; public exhibitions were held and included models and artists impressions of the scheme; a telephone hotline to receive comments; this was staffed and was not just an answer phone service; dissemination of information through the local media; and meetings with the emergency services to discuss traffic management issues. A joint representative working party and steering committee was formed to oversee the implementation of the proposals.

- 106 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus operators Wilmslow Road has the highest number of registered bus services on any road in Greater Manchester operated by Stagecoach Manchester including services provided under the Magic Bus brand name. Other operators providing local bus services on Wilmslow Road include First Manchester, Arriva North West, Finglands and five smaller independent companies. Bus frequency In the inter-peak period on weekdays there is a total hourly two-way flow of 110 buses on Wilmslow Road through the district centre. The hourly two-way flow increases to 136 on the section of Wilmslow Road to the north of the district centre where the southbound with-flow bus lane is located. Bus flows are substantially higher during weekday peak periods.

Scheme impact
Post implementation monitoring of the impact of the scheme has not yet taken place, but it is anticipated that it will deliver the following outcomes: an improvement in the street environment making the district centre more attractive for shoppers and visitors; a reduction in indiscriminate and illegal parking. The initial view of the bus operator is that a similar scheme in nearby Withington has been more effective in eliminating problem parking because the traffic lanes are narrower and there is less opportunity to park without completely blocking traffic; a reduction in the high numbers of pedestrian casualties achieved through the provision of additional pedestrian crossing facilities, speed reduction measures and better management of on-street parking and servicing of frontage businesses; a reduction in the number of accidents involving cyclists achieved by providing cycle lanes and advanced stop lines; a more attractive environment and full accessibility at bus stops; and improvements in reliability, and particularly a reduction in the variability of bus journey times, as a result of implementation of bus priority measures on the approaches to the district centre, queue relocation and the metering of traffic through the mixed priority section of Wilmslow Road.

Conclusions
This mixed priority scheme has improved conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, reduced speeds, and allowed better management of parking and servicing in Rusholme district centre. The specific elements of the scheme that benefit buses are the two bus lanes and bus gates on the approaches to the district centre. They allow buses to overtake other traffic, provide journey time and reliability benefits, and help outbound right-turning buses on the northern approach to the district centre. The mixed priority measures implemented in the district centre are thought to have had a broadly neutral effect on buses; benefits from better control of parking and servicing being offset by the impact of additional pedestrian crossing facilities.

- 107 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgement is given for the assistance provided by Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, Manchester City Council and Stagecoach Manchester during preparation of this case study.

Other examples
There are similar examples of mixed priority routes elsewhere in Greater Manchester including the district centres of Levenshulme and Withington.

Further information
For further information contact the bus priority team at Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive on 0161 242 6000 or write to: Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive 19 Portland Street Piccadilly Gardens Manchester M60 1HX

Bus friendly traffic calming
Description of need
Background The first traffic calming scheme with road humps was introduced in Hull in 1993. Since then Hull City Council has achieved substantial reduction in road accident casualties. Central to the success of Hull’s traffic calming policy has been the introduction of 20 mph zones throughout the city, the first of which was introduced in 1995. The idea of 20 mph zones was introduced in the UK to address the problem of child pedestrian accidents. DfT guidance on 20 mph zones suggests that the risk of a child being involved in an accident drops by two thirds with the introduction of a 20 mph zone (TRL analysed 250 zones which indicated that child accidents fell by 67 per cent and the overall number of accidents fell by 60 per cent). illustration of scheme By 1998 Hull City Council had developed fifty 20 mph zones, including zones on a number of bus routes. These were a mixture of high and low frequency routes with some calmed roads having as many as 14 buses per hour each way. A further development in 1998 was the acceptance of agreed standards between the City Council, bus operators and emergency services in Hull for bus and ambulance friendly traffic calming. Currently in Hull there are just under 17 kilometres of traffic calming on bus routes in the city, 9 kilometres of which is on bus routes with a frequency of 10 minutes or greater. Objectives The agreed standards for traffic calming were introduced in Hull in order to minimise the impact of traffic calming on bus routes and ambulances responding to emergency calls, whilst still reducing mean speeds and achieving the targeted casualty reductions. In general, where traffic calming is not carefully consulted

- 108 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

on at the design stage, the impact upon public transport can result in services being withdrawn due to additional time added to the service and wear and tear on vehicles making a route not commercially viable. There are also cases in some parts of the country where bus drivers have complained that poorly designed traffic calming has resulted in injuries through repeated driving over humps. Additional objectives of traffic calming include reducing average traffic speeds, increasing the number of people walking and cycling, improving the environment for those who live work or travel along the route and providing a safer route to school for local children.

Scheme details
Description The agreed standards between Hull City Council and the bus operator included: all vertical traffic calming measures to be a maximum 75 millimetres high; all speed cushions to be 2.1 metres wide, 3 metres long with 550 millimetres side slopes; speed table/flat top humps to have 1800 millimetres long ramps with a minimum 9 metre long plateau; all traffic calming schemes to include minimum number of measures to achieve objectives; minimum 15 metre length of waiting restrictions to protect each side of speed cushion; and regular traffic calming meetings between city council, bus operators and emergency services. Traffic calming measures on Shannon Road Traffic calming measures on Shannon Road The dimensions of the traffic calming measures were agreed to take advantage of the wider wheel base of the buses. The waiting restrictions surrounding traffic calming measures prevent cars from parking on the approach to speed cushions, ensuring that buses are able to approach the traffic calming at the correct angle, allowing a more comfortable journey for the passenger. Hull now has over one hundred 20 mph zones throughout the city. An example of one of these schemes can be seen on Shannon Road. This scheme was introduced in April 1998 in response to a previous high level of injury accidents, especially involving child pedestrians and cyclists. Shannon Road is a local distributor route carrying around 5,000 vehicles per day and services a large estate to the east of the city centre. A frequent bus service exists and there are numerous shops and a school on the route. The scheme consists of speed cushions throughout its length and a short section of 20 mph zone to protect the school and major shopping area. The 20 mph zone includes road narrowing and priority working to enforce the 20 mph limit. The signs positioned at the entrance to all zones in Hull have been designed by local children, helping to emphasise local ownership of the scheme.

- 109 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Cost The overall contribution to the implementation of the 20 mph zones in Hull is £5.5 million to date. This has been met from a variety of different sources both from corporate capital and transport capital funding. Consultation Decisions on the choice of traffic calming measures to use at any particular location in Hull is based on experience that has been built up in the area and on extensive consultation with the bus operators, emergency services and the public. All the 20 mph zones went through consultation including leaflets, questionnaires, public exhibitions and meetings of ward forums and residential committees. Owing to the current scale of traffic calming in Hull there is a high level of community awareness surrounding traffic calming and communities are well aware of the positive results from other local areas. In fact much of the demand for the schemes has come from within the local communities. Bus operators Bus operators are now actively involved in the design of traffic calming in Hull, this includes consultation on issues such as spacing and positioning of cushions in relation to bus stops. The scheme on Newland Avenue (a national road safety demonstration project) is an example of a scheme where the council and bus operator have worked closely together in designing the layout of the carriageway, negotiating the optimum position for cushions, bus stops and crossing facilities to reduce delay experienced by bus services on the route and minimise any discomfort which may be experience by the passenger as a result of traffic calming measures. One issue raised by operators is the effect of traffic calming on services which are operated by mini and midi bus services. Because of their shorter wheel base they are unable to avoid the effects of the traffic calming even with the agreed measures. This produces a ’wobble’ effect for the passengers and exerts additional pressure on the inner wheel of the vehicle, as the vehicle is not able to get both wheels on the slopes of the cushion. The solution to this has been to increase the width of the cushion allowing the mini buses to get both wheels on the side slopes of the cushions. The additional problem here is that any measures introduced to mitigate the effects on mini and midi buses will also be effective for small vans, reducing the overall effectiveness of the traffic calming scheme. The operators enforce the 20 mph zone through driver instruction and by the use of sporadic speed gun checks, particularly in areas where there have been complaints about buses allegedly speeding. Bus operators have realised a hidden saving from the extensive traffic calming and introduction of 20 mph zones. Where accidents occur on high frequency routes the bus operator still needs to provide the same frequency of service although buses will become caught up in the delay associated with the accident. This delay can be as much as 15 minutes which means an additional bus is required on the route to maintain the correct frequency. The reduction in accidents through the implementation of traffic calming therefore results in a saving to the operators as there are fewer occasions where they need to provide the extra bus. This kind of saving is only applicable to areas where there is extensive traffic calming. The reduction in accidents also improves the reliability of services across the whole network particularly for cross city services.

- 110 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Before and after monitoring
A number of monitoring studies have been undertaken in areas where bus friendly traffic calming has been introduced. In Hull accident data for the city has been collated for three years before each scheme and three years after each scheme. In addition, the Institute for Public Policy Research conducted research into child pedestrian safety using Hull as one of its case studies. TRL have undertaken a study of 20 mph zones, including analysis of the impact of 20 mph zones on traffic flows in treated areas and surrounding areas which may be affected by traffic transferring to other streets. Whilst bus operators monitor journey times, reliability and patronage levels these figures can be misleading indicators as they tend to be affected by other factors such bus priority measures in other parts of the city.

Results
Traffic flows The TRL report ’Review of Traffic Calming in 20 mph Zones’ suggests that traffic flow was reduced by 27 per cent within 20 mph zones, whereas the roads surrounding the 20 mph zones experienced an increase of 12 per cent. Traffic flows were monitored at two sites in the Shannon Road safety scheme. The results showed that traffic had been reduced by over a quarter in the 20 mph zone in the afternoon peak (28.6 per cent between 15.30 and 16.30). Journey times Bus operators have taken the view that traffic calming has only had a negligible effect on bus journey times. In most cases the bus routes where traffic calming has been implemented were already slow routes with numerous stops and high patronage, resulting in average speeds of around 10 mph for buses even before traffic calming. Thus the reduction in general traffic flow experienced on these routes as a result of traffic calming may have a positive effect on bus journey times. Casualty reduction Accident data collated by Hull City Council for three years before and after the implementation of traffic calming on bus routes (18 schemes in total) revealed that the number of accidents has dropped from 315 in the three years before traffic calmed zones were implemented to 156 in the three years after implementation. This equates to a reduction of 53 accidents per year and 4.3 less accidents per kilometre per year. Overall: fatal and serious injury accidents have been reduced by 64 per cent; injury accidents involving children have been reduced by 60 per cent; injury accidents involving pedestrians have been reduced by 60 per cent; injury accidents involving child pedestrians have been reduced by 71 per cent; injury accidents involving cyclists have been reduced by 28 per cent; and

- 111 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

injury accidents involving child cyclists have been reduced by 32 per cent. Looking at this data on a scheme by scheme basis Shannon Road saw a reduction in accidents in the three years proceeding traffic calming of 71 per cent, with accidents per year falling from 9.3 to 2.7 between 1995 and 2000. Greatest changes were seen in accidents involving pedestrians which saw a reduction of 93 per cent and accidents during darkness which saw a reduction of 85 per cent. An Institute for Public Policy Research study estimated that since 1994 Hull’s programme of 20 mph zones has already saved about 200 serious injuries and about 1000 minor injuries. In accounting terms these savings are worth well over £40 million. Total number of crashes in 20 mph zones has fallen by 56 per cent and the number of crashes resulting in deaths or serious injuries has been cut by 90 per cent. This reduction in accidents on the city’s roads is also felt to have a positive impact on the reliability of bus services; an accident can cause in the region of 15 minutes delay to a service, having a serious impact on passengers’ perceptions of reliability and punctuality. This is particularly an issue if a bus route is affected by an accident hotspot and is consequently experiencing regular delays. Average vehicle speeds At Shannon Road the scheme was introduced incrementally. The 20 mph signs were introduced followed by speed roundels and finally the main scheme was introduced. Vehicle speeds were monitored through this phasing and the results can be seen in the table below: Summary of traffic speed Summary of traffic speed The results show that the largest reduction occurred when the full scheme was implemented with average speeds being reduced by up to a third, although a noticeable reduction in speed occurred with the introduction of the signs and roundels.

Conclusions
The key to bus friendly traffic calming is extensive consultation between the bus operators and council representatives. This is highlighted in Hull where the Council and bus operators have been working together on traffic calming schemes for ten years. Traffic calming has been able to improve bus reliability through a number of indirect routes including a reduction in the number of accidents on the network reducing the delay experienced by bus services and through a reduction in traffic flows on traffic calmed routes resulting in buses experiencing less congestion related delays in these areas. A number of issues remain unresolved with regards to public transport and traffic calming including the fact that priority seats on buses for the elderly and those with mobility impairments tend to be positioned at the front of the bus over the front wheels. This is where the ’wobble effect’ created by speed cushions is greatest and has led to a number of complaints about the discomfort of the journey and incidents where shopping has fallen over.

- 112 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

There is also the issue of services which operate using mini and midi buses as the dimensions for traffic calming measures agreed between the city council and bus operators does not accommodate the shorter wheel base of these vehicles. The future Currently 26 per cent of the 730 kilometres of road are covered by a 20 mph limit and further areas are under consideration. Some 60 per cent of roads in Hull are suitable for 20 mph zones, although the great majority of these will be in residential areas away from the main bus routes. European approach A number of bus friendly traffic calming measures from mainland Europe are discussed in ’Civilised Streets a guide to traffic calming’. One example of this is the combi hump used in Denmark. The design includes two humps one for cars (in the middle) and two for buses (either side of the hump for cars), the hump for cars being more severe than that for buses, taking advantage of the difference in wheel base lengths between buses and cars. Sweden has developed a traffic calming measure using a depression in the road (used in Stockholm and Västeras). The depressions are wide enough that cars must drive through them but buses are able to straddle them, this has led to support from bus operators for this measure. There are three areas of concern with using depressions as a traffic calming measure, firstly they are less visible than a hump, secondly there have been some drainage issues and finally the cost of this measure is approximately four times that of installing humps. A further example can be found in Denmark which combines depressions and humps. This is know as the bus sluis and comprises a hump in the normal carriage way with a separate section of carriage way for buses. This separate section has a depression with a ramp leading up to it which buses can straddle and cars can not; the disadvantage with this measure is the amount of carriage way width required.

References
Brightwell, Sarah, Hull reaps road safety rewards from slowing the city’s traffic, Local Transport Today, 15/05/04. Carmen Hass Klau et al, Civilised Streets a guide to traffic calming, Environmental and Transport Planning, 1992. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 09/99, 20 mph speed limits and zones, DfT, 1999.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Hull City Council and East Yorkshire Motor Services Limited.

- 113 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Other examples
Telford & Wrekin Council. Contact the Network Management and Development Department on: 01952 202100 (main switchboard).

Further information
Further information on traffic calming in Hull can be obtained from: Traffic Projects Manager Traffic Services Kingston upon Hull City Council Kingston House Bond Street Hull HU1 3ER 01482 612095

High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
Description of need
Background High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or ’2 Plus’ lanes were introduced on the A647 Stanningley Road and Stanningley By-Pass as Leeds City Council’s contribution to the ICARO (Increasing CAR Occupancy) research project. Stanningley Road and Stanningley By-Pass form the principal radial route to the west of Leeds city centre and are part of the route linking Leeds and Bradford. Problems The part of Stanningley Road and Stanningley By-Pass chosen for the HOV lane is a dual two lane carriageway. In January 1997, journey times in free-flow traffic conditions were little more than 5 minutes for 2.0km whereas, in the morning peak period, journey times were typically more than 10 minutes. Objectives Leeds City Council saw the primary objective of the scheme to be to provide priority for the majority of people travelling towards Leeds on the A647 in peak periods. It was expected that the scheme would result in an increase in car occupancy.

- 114 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

ICARO objectives were broader in scope. The aims were: to increase car occupancy by encouraging car sharing; and to demonstrate the feasibility of providing a lane for shared use by buses, other high occupancy vehicles, motorcycles and cycles.

Scheme details
Description The HOV lane is available to buses, coaches, other vehicles carrying 2 or more people, motorcycles and pedal cycles. Goods vehicles over 7.5T are not permitted to use the 2+ lane. There are two lengths of inbound HOV or 2+ lane extending for a total of 1.5km along 2.0km of dual carriageway. The HOV lanes operate in the morning and evening peak periods (07:00 - 10:00, 16:00 19:00) on Mondays to Fridays. Advance signing is provided on the approaches to the HOV lanes. Half-width laybys are provided to ensure that buses can serve bus stops without obstructing the flow of other permitted categories of traffic. Traffic signal control is provided at the end of the HOV lane to manage merging of traffic from the HOV and non-HOV traffic lanes. At first these signals operated for fixed time periods. They have been modified to respond to different traffic conditions before and after the end of the HOV lanes. The signals can also switch on and off in response to traffic conditions. The scheme included police enforcement laybys, speed cameras, improved street lighting, improvements at bus stops, pelican crossings with tactile paving, anti-skid surfacing and changes to traffic circulation on side roads. Implementation date The HOV lane was opened under an experimental Traffic Regulation Order on 11 May 1998 and made permanent on 8 November 1999. Costs Scheme implementation cost was £585,000 at 1998 prices. Illustratin of scheme Consultation The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 authorises local authorities to introduce experimental TROs without prior consultation. In this case, although there was no formal public consultation, there was substantial consultation with elected members, the emergency services, bus operators, cycling groups, groups representing the disabled community, motoring organisations and local community groups before implementation. Further consultation took place with residents, the police and bus operators after implementation resulting in minor changes to the initial scheme.

- 115 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus operators The majority of bus services on Stanningley Road are operated by First, but some services are provided by Black Prince Coaches. Bus frequency There are 8 buses an hour in each direction using the first section of HOV lane on Stanningley Bypass. This increases to 17 buses an hour in each direction between the junction of Stanningley Bypass and Stanningley Road in Bramley and Armley.

Before and after monitoring
Dates of surveys ’Before’ surveys were undertaken in May and June 1997. ’After’ surveys took place in May and June 1999. Analysis of further surveys undertaken in September 2002 is nearing completion. Types of surveys Data collected included traffic counts in the morning and evening peak periods, vehicle occupancy, journey times and queue lengths. In addition, analysis was undertaken of records of personal injury accidents and police enforcement. Information on public attitudes and driver behaviour was obtained from household and roadside interview surveys. An environmental monitoring station on Stanningley Road provided information on air quality.

Results
An evaluation of scheme impacts has been undertaken by Leeds City Council. Morning peak traffic flows: Immediately after opening there was significant driver avoidance of the A647 and traffic flow fell by 20 per cent. By late 1999, traffic flows had returned to 1997 levels in both the peak hour and the operational period. Evening peak traffic flows: Traffic flow in the operational period (16:00 to 19:00) fell by 10 per cent at scheme inception, but returned to the ’before’ level by June 1999. By June 2002 traffic flow had increased by a further 14 per cent in the three hour period. Occupancy: In 1997, 30 per cent of cars carried two or more occupants. One third of vehicles (including buses) carried two-thirds of people travelling in the corridor in the morning peak period. The number of high occupancy vehicles using the A647 in the period 07:00 to 10:00 increased by 5 per cent between 1997 and 1999. Given that 1997 and 1999 flows were similar, the implication is that there was an exchange of HOV and non-HOV traffic between the A647 and parallel routes. Average car occupancy rose from 1.35 in May 1997 to 1.43 by June 1999 and 1.51 in 2002.

- 116 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus patronage increased by one per cent in the first year of operation of the HOV lanes. There are indications of further growth in bus patronage since 1998, but the recent introduction by First of an ’Overground’ network inhibits robust conclusions. Journey times: Morning peak journey time savings for buses and other high occupancy vehicles were 4 minutes comparing June 1997 and June 1999 data. Over the same period there was a reduction of 1½ minutes in non-HOV journey times. Accidents: There was reduction of 30 per cent in casualties in a period of three years after scheme implementation in May 1998. Enforcement: Lane violation levels were low in the months following implementation as a result of daily police enforcement. In 2002 lane violation levels were still less than 6 per cent despite a relaxation of enforcement. This can be attributed to the level of enforcement agreed between the city council and the police. Public attitudes: Roadside interviews in February 1999 showed HOV driver support for the lane to be only 66 per cent. This is low considering the journey time benefits of the scheme. The reason may be that HOV drivers also made peak period journeys as non-HOV drivers and, when doing so, did not benefit from the journey time savings observed. Air quality: There has been little change in air quality on the A647 as a result of the introduction of the HOV lane. The relatively small improvement can be attributed to reduced vehicle emissions rather than to the impact of the HOV lane.

Conclusions
The HOV lanes scheme on the A647 Stanningley Road and Stanningley By-Pass has resulted in: a reduction in inbound journey times for buses and other high occupancy vehicles of 4 minutes in the morning peak; a reduction in inbound non-HOV journey times of 1½ minutes in the morning peak; increases in bus patronage and average car occupancy; a reduction in the number of accident casualties; and a low level of violation. Following the success of the scheme on the A647, Leeds City Council is now planning to introduce HOV lanes on the proposed East Leeds Link Road. Leeds City Council is now participating in the HOV Monitoring (HOVMON) project to develop automated camera enforcement techniques to determine car occupancy.

Acknowledgements
This case study was produced with the assistance of Leeds City Council and Metro (West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive).

- 117 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Other examples
A4174 Avon Ring Road westbound (A432 to M32), Hambrook, South Gloucestershire (in the North Fringe of Bristol). Contact South Gloucestershire Council, Planning Transportation and Strategic Environment Department on 01454 868686.

Further information
Further information on the A647 Stanningley Road HOV lane can be obtained from: Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department The Leonardo Building, 2 Rossington Street, Leeds LS2 8HB 0113 247 7500 http://www.leeds.gov.uk The publicity leaflet ’Priority Lane for High Occupancy Vehicles’ (1999) is available from Leeds City Council at the above address.

No-car lanes
Description of need
Background Superoutes, first proposed in 1998, offered a new approach to bus travel within the Tyne and Wear region. The 35 superoutes within the region are the product of informal quality bus partnerships etween local councils, bus operators and Nexus with the aim of delivering frequent, high quality services along key public transport routes. The superoutes aim to; provide modern buses and infrastructure; provide better travel information, lighting and security at bus stops; implement bus priority and highway improvements to enable quicker journeys; ensure frequent, more reliable journeys; improve interconnection between services in the region;

- 118 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

provide Euro 11 emissions compliant vehicles; and increase bus patronage across the region. Several of the superoutes within the Sunderland area run along A690 Durham Road. The City of Sunderland Council developed proposals for providing priority for buses and upgrading passenger facilities and information on the A690 Durham Road following an assessment of the potential benefits of providing ’Green Route’ treatment on a number of corridors in the city. Green corridors are routes that have been upgraded to give priority to vulnerable users such as pedestrians and cyclists and public transport vehicles. Measures to benefit buses and bus users on the Durham Road Corridor were implemented in several stages and promoted as the Durham Road Superoute. Bus services in the corridor also benefited from investment in Park Lane Interchange in the city centre and the designation of a special parking area to address illegal parking. No-car lanes are a relatively new concept in the re-allocation of highway space. The concept which evolved from that of the bus lane is based on use of the lane by buses and some other vehicles, but the prevention of car use in the designated lane. These lanes have been introduced to Newcastle City Centre and it is hoped that the success can be repeated across the region. It is now proposed to designate the bus lanes on Durham Road as no-car lanes. Problems Bus priority and green corridor measures were proposed along the high frequency bus route along Durham Road in response to the following problems: delay to buses caused by traffic congestion at key junctions in the city centre; delay to buses on Durham Road in the direction of peak flow on the approaches to major junctions on the corridor; obstructions to traffic caused by right turning traffic and legitimate and illegal on-street parking; difficulty in emerging into heavy free-flowing traffic and queuing traffic from bus lay-bys; and difficulties for buses entering Durham Road from side roads. The problems were predominantly experienced in peak periods. Objectives The objectives of the superoute bus priority proposals were to: make the city centre more accessible; provide high quality bus services to the city centre by improving reliability and reducing variability of journey times; achieve modal shift from car to bus; and improve the surrounding environment.

- 119 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The overall objective was to raise the profile and quality of bus services in the City of Sunderland through the application of Green Route treatment.

Scheme Details
Description The Durham Road Superoute was formally launched in April 1998 and was at the time the most comprehensive corridor approach to improving bus travel in Tyne & Wear. The scheme comprised 1630 metres of bus lanes, new bus shelters, improved passenger information and 21 new low floor buses (with ramps for wheelchair access, grant aided by Nexus). This superoute is the first scheme introduced under a Quality Partnership for the City of Sunderland. Stagecoach Busways, Go Wear (Go Ahead Group), City of Sunderland and Nexus were all involved in the scheme. Costs The cost of introducing the superoute scheme was £250,000, including design and monitoring. The estimated cost of implementing no-car lanes on Durham Road is £50,000, including design and monitoring. Consultation The emergency services, bus operators and ward members were all consulted in addition to face-to-face interviews with residents as part of the evaluation procedure. Bus operators The two main bus operators running services along the A690 Durham Road Superoute corridor are Stagecoach and GO North-East. Arriva also operate a bus service along Durham Road. Bus frequency The Durham Road Superoute extends from Sunderland City Centre to the city boundary to the west of the junction of the A690 Durham Road with the A19 at East Herrington. The number of buses per hour using the superoute increases eastwards as routes from residential suburbs join Durham Road. Weekday peak period frequency rises from 6 buses per hour in each direction at the A19 intersection to 22 buses per hour close to the city centre. The five superoutes serving the corridor account for the majority of this number.

Before and after monitoring
Dates and types of survey A comprehensive programme of before and after scheme monitoring has been undertaken on the Durham Road Superoute. Journey times (including time at bus stops allowing passengers to board and alight) have been recorded by the moving observer method, initially with survey staff on buses and more recently through roadside surveys. The most recent surveys were undertaken in 2002 and it is from these that the following results are taken.

- 120 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Before and after comparisons are difficult as in 1997 and 1998 buses operated to and from the central bus station in Sunderland and from May 1999, Park Lane Interchange opened and services were then diverted. In the future bus journey time monitoring will move away from manual recording to automated data collection, enabling a more complete analysis of the impacts of schemes. A series of household attitudinal surveys were posted in the vicinity of the superoute; 335 residents responded. In addition to this, user attitudinal surveys were also carried out in the form of face-to-face interviews on buses and at bus stops.

Results
Traffic flows General traffic flows on the corridor have decreased by 6 per cent at the outer cordon and 16 per cent in the inner cordon. Flows on alternative routes have increased by 6 per cent, on both Chester Road and Silksworth Lane. Traffic delay surveys have revealed increased journey times for traffic, particularly outbound during the evening peak. Journey times and reliability The moving observer surveys comparing bus journey times for November 1997 to November 1998 reveal both benefits and disbenefits. The introduction of bus priority measures has produced more consistent journey times and reduced the large variation identified in the 1997 survey. However, there are now delays at traffic signal controlled junctions on the route where there is no bus priority and outbound on the approach to the Barnes Gyratory. Average measured journey times along the corridor are in the range of 9 to 11 minutes compared with the scheduled journey time of 15 minutes. More recent figures reveal a rise in journey times which can be attributed to the increase in traffic on the periphery of the city centre and longer times accessing and egressing the Interchange. Patronage Continuous monitoring of bus services has shown a 6 per cent patronage increase on Durham Road Easy Access bus services and a slight increase in travel on other bus services on Durham Road. Both are measured in comparison to other bus services in Sunderland. Easy Access bus services account for 55 per cent of passengers travelling on the corridor. Safety The transformation of the A690 Durham Road to the superoute has seen a reduction in accidents along the corridor. In 1998 the number of fatal and serious accidents fell to 28 in comparison to the 40 recorded the previous year. In the same time period slight accidents fell from 257 to 231. System performance

- 121 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The household attitudinal surveys revealed the following: ⢠93 per cent agreed that ease of getting on and off buses is now good or very good; 92 per cent of respondents said that general quality of low floor buses is good or very good; 36 per cent revealed that the superoute has improved bus travel; and 19 per cent revealed they use the route more often now than they did a year ago. The face-to-face interviews provided the following results: ⢠81 per cent of respondents listed access for wheelchairs and prams as the main factor that has improved since the introduction of bus lanes and low floor buses, with 96 per cent agreeing that accessibility for wheelchair and prams is good; over 80 per cent of those interviewed thought that information, frequency of service, punctuality, vehicle quality and attitude of drivers is good; and 73 per cent agreed that the provision of bus lanes had improved the service.

The evolution of no-car lanes
Bus lanes assist the movement of buses around congested city centres by reducing journey time and improving reliability, but in many cases no-car lanes have proven to be a more effective use of road space. The Government White Paper recognised that congestion and unreliability of journeys adds to the cost of businesses, undermining competitiveness in our towns and cities. No-car lanes give priority for essential vehicles facilitating the movement of goods as well as people in congested urban centres. In addition to helping the movement of buses and goods vehicles, no-car lanes can increase road capacity in some cases by segregating wider vehicles from standard vehicle lanes. Another major benefit is the reduction of lorry traffic on alternative routes. No-car lanes are probably best utilised in situations where bus flows are too low to justify a lane exclusively for buses. Newcastle City Council has led the way in the implementation of no-car lanes. In Newcastle city centre there are many existing or planned no-car lanes, for example on Barras Bridge, New Bridge Street, Westgate Road, Sandyford Road, John Dobson Street, Barrack Road, Percy Street and Great North Road. No data has been produced to evaluate the schemes but feedback from user groups has been positive so far. The previous examples are all successful schemes in Tyne and Wear; it is therefore feasible that the success of these schemes could be translated to Sunderland with the implementation of/conversion to no-car lanes on the A690 Durham Road Superoute.

Conclusions
The introduction of a bus lane on Durham Road has provided a more direct route to Sunderland city centre, which can be seen in the reduction in journey times. There have also been significant decreases in traffic flows. Durham Road Easy Access bus services have also seen a patronage increase of 6 per cent with household and user attitudinal surveys revealing positive feedback. The results show that the superoute has successfully met its objectives. However the success of no-car lanes in nearby Newcastle shows that lanes need not be exclusive to buses in order to relieve urban congestion and that in the future a conversion of some or all of the A690 Durham Road to a no-car lane may be a more viable option.

- 122 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Acknowledgements
This document was produced with the assistance of the City of Sunderland Council and Nexus.

Further information
Further information can be obtained from: City of Sunderland Council Development and Regeneration Directorate City Centre Burdon Road Sunderland SR2 7DN 0191 5531000 http://www.sunderland.gov.uk Newcastle City Council Planning and Transport Section Newcastle City Council Civic Centre Barras Bridge Newcastle upon Tyne NE99 1RD http://www.newcastle.gov.uk Nexus Nexus House St James Boulevard Newcastle upon Tyne

- 123 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

NE1 4AX 0191 2033333 http://www.nexus.co.uk Further information on superoute can be obtained at: www.superoute.com

Bus park and ride
Description of need
Background The UK’s longest-running park and ride site was established in Oxford during the early 1970s. This as part of a comprehensive transport strategy designed to discourage traffic from entering the city because of its adverse effect on the city’s historic fabric. A number of other cities experimented with ark and ride including Nottingham and Leicester. A lull in park and ride development followed, as traffic growth predictions were not borne out in reality. A new phase of park and ride schemes were implemented in the mid 1980s in a bid to alleviate city centre congestion. This phase included schemes in Bath, Cambridge and Chester. The introduction of new park and ride sites continued into the mid 1990s. The 1990s also saw existing sites begin to expand to accommodate the needs of changing demand. The Government’s 10-Year Plan of July 2000 promised, "high quality park and ride schemes so that people do not have to drive into congested town centres", setting a target for the development of "up to 100 new park and ride schemes" by 2010. Since 2000 there has been a net increase of 26 sites, and plans are being developed for further significant expansion. Site location The target market for park and ride is existing car users who would otherwise drive into the town centre. Sites are usually located on radial routes on the edge of the urban area to intercept inbound motorists. However, it is important to consider the potential impacts on local bus services. Abstraction of patronage from local services to park and ride also reduces the capacity of the service. In a survey of all the bus based park and ride schemes in the UK, the average distance from the city for a park and ride site was two to three miles. This analysis also revealed that all but one of the sites over 4 miles away had been built since 2000. The table overleaf illustrates the distance of park and ride sites from the urban centres. Park and ride in Great Britain

- 124 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Distance from the centre (miles) Number of sites Up to 0.5 0.5 to 1 1 to 1.5 1.5 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 6 to 7 Over 10 miles Source: TAS (2003) Key elements Park and ride schemes form part of an overall transport strategy. This can include a package of measures constraining traffic in the city centre that includes; reducing parking spaces, applying appropriate charging, extending traffic free zones, encouraging walking and cycling. Parking controls in the city centre are an integral part of park and ride strategies. Those park and ride sites with the highest utilisation levels tend to offer a huge discount in cost of parking compared with town centre parking (18-19 per cent of the town centre rate at peak times). In some towns the popularity of the park and ride scheme has been adversely affected by the reluctance to introduce on-street parking management in the city centre. The primary reason for this is fear of inducing a transfer of retail trade to other nearby centres. Park and ride car parks have the advantage that they tend to have larger spaces and are therefore easier to park in, due to value of land being lower on these edges of urban area locations. Urban centre parking is often multi-storey to maximise the floor space available, many drivers dislike multi-storey car parks due to associated safety concerns. Frequent and reliable bus services are crucial to the success of park and ride schemes. A service frequency of broadly ten minutes off-peak and seven to eight minutes in peak times is suggested by ’Bus-Based Park and Ride: A Good Practice Guide, 2000’. In addition to this it is imperative that park and ride sites are able to offer comparable journey times with private car, though where combined with bus lanes, bus gates and conveniently located town or city centre bus stops it is possible for park and ride services to offer a distinct journey time advantage over the private car. Public transport priority measures can also assist regular services along the route. The service must provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the morning and afternoon peaks in demand, but a key criticism of park and ride is the wasted capacity as patronage tends to be concentrated in peak periods and primarily in one direction. A number of schemes have sought to combat this, in Oxford services traverse the city and, as such, cross-city journeys are possible by park and ride. Recent evidence 1 9 19 16 30 18 3 1 2

- 125 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

suggests that cross-city journeys make up 10 - 15 per cent of park and ride patronage. In York a contra-flow is provided by students using the services to access York College, which is located opposite the Askham Bar site. This car park site also has a dual use as the site was funded as part of a land sale to Tesco for the development of a superstore. A further way to combat this wasted capacity is to tap into off peak markets such as tourists or shoppers; this can be achieved through partnerships with town centres to promote park and ride use for leisure trips. There are three possible ways of charging for park and ride: charge for bus journey, charge for parking or both. Approximately 70 sites in the UK have chosen the bus fare option while 11 sites charge for car parking. Three cities charge for both. The table below illustrates the costs and benefits for the different charging structures. Costs and benefits of alternative charging structures Costs and benefits of alternative charging structures Problems Park and ride schemes have been introduced mainly in answer to access issues in congested centres. Air pollution is also a concern in congested central areas and it is felt that park and ride may go some way to addressing these concerns through reducing the volume of traffic entering the central area. However, it is argued by some that park and ride reduces city centre mileage at the expense of additional mileage in rural and suburban areas, although this gives lesser concentrations of kerb-side pollution because of the dispersed nature of any additional traffic movements. Monitoring Due to the length of time some of the schemes have been running, comprehensive before and after monitoring is not always possible. Monitoring of more recent schemes looks at traffic flows on roads adjacent to the park and ride sites to establish the level of abstraction from the private car. Journey times are also monitored for both bus and private car. A number of schemes have conducted market research of park and ride users, to establish user profiles and areas for improving.

Scheme details Case study 1: Leicester
Description In 1997 Leicester introduced a park and ride site at Meynell’s Gorse to the west of Leicester, with comprehensive bus priorities in an inbound direction. The central objectives of this scheme were: increasing accessibility to the city centre; reducing peak hour journeys; reducing air pollution; and encouraging modal shift from cars to buses

- 126 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Meynell’s Gorse could originally accommodate just over 300 cars and was operating at capacity within three months of opening. The number of spaces has increased to 500, but the site still operates close to capacity. To prevent the car park being filled by commuters to the exclusion of shoppers and to reduce abstraction from local services in the off peak, two different methods of charging are employed. Up to 09.30 a return ticket costs £1.75 per person. An alternative charge of £2.20 per car is available after 09.30. This is also a reflection of high long stay parking costs and low car occupancy at peak times. The service runs every 10 minutes during peak hours and every 15 minutes in the off peak period. Normally hours of service are between 07.00 to 19.00 Monday to Saturday. Security is addressed at the site through the presence of an attendant for part of the day and the area is covered by CCTV. The bus route from the park and ride site to the city centre is direct. Private cars are able to access the city centre at the point where passengers from the park and ride bus alight; however the route by private car is slower and incurs higher parking charges. Cost The park and ride site is jointly funded by Leicestershire County Council and Leicester City Council (approximately 33 per cent to 67 per cent respectively). The city council manages the car park, while the county council manages the bus services contract. Bus operator The service is operated by Arriva. Monitoring results Although no scheme specific data was collected before implementation, comparisons have been made with pre-study traffic flow data and data from monitoring conducted in 1998, after implementation. The most significant observations are as follows: 190 fewer cars were entering the city in the morning peak along the A47. Previously 900 cars per hour were entering the city along this route; park and ride buses were able to complete the journey quicker than the private car. Bus journey times improved by approximately 5 minutes while car journey times remained the same; the reliability of journeys by bus improved with the standard deviation of journey times dropping from 4.9 to 2.7 minutes for the inbound journey and 6 to 2.6 minutes in the outbound journey; 63 per cent of park and ride users previously made their journey by car; a quarter of respondents used park and ride 2 - 4 days per week while just under a quarter (23 per cent) used park and ride on a daily basis; 34 per cent of park and ride users were making more journeys to Leicester since the introduction of park and ride. This supports the argument that park and ride schemes reduce the generalised cost of travel for some users and as a consequence generate extra trips to the centre; and 65 per cent of users were female.

- 127 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

A comparison of patronage over time is not possible due to the two systems of charging operating in the peak and off peak. However an analysis of revenue reveals patronage increased on bus services in the corridor which is illustrated in the table below: Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 10 -2 4

% Increase in patronage 49 Source: TAS (2003)

The reduction in growth shown in the table is thought to be a reflection of the site nearing capacity.

Scheme details Case study 2: Chester
Description Chester’s first park and ride site opened in 1983 with the original objective of reducing congestion in central Chester. A later transport study identified three further objectives, which are to: ensure that there is no increase in city centre parking facilities; encourage long stay and commuter parking to use park and ride sites; and continue the policy of expanding park and ride sites, aiming for an extra 1,000-1,500 spaces by 2011. The Chester scheme includes four sites; Broughton Heath, Sealand Road, Upton and Wrexham Road. All are staffed by an attendant throughout the day, with the presence of automated ticket issuing machines. All sites are also monitored using CCTV. The site charges for the bus journey rather than the parking, thus avoiding VAT complications. This has the added advantage of marketing the sites as having ’free parking’. Also, there are faster loading times and a reduced security risk for the driver because ticketing is off-bus. The park and ride bus route allows access to the city centre by the most direct route, which is not available to those accessing the centre by private car. This is combined with bus priority measures on radial routes to ensure that bus journey times are at least as quick as travelling by private car. There are a number of drop off and pick up points in Chester city allowing the services to achieve maximum city centre penetration. Bus operator The emergence of a series of tender options allowed a single operator to bid for all four site contracts together. Whilst this was not a specific aim, it has proved to have some advantages. Chester City Transport has been appointed as the operator. There has been little evidence of park and ride services abstracting passengers from local services, although there is anecdotal evidence that a small number of local residents are walking to the site and using the service.

- 128 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Monitoring results The increase in usage of park and ride in Chester is illustrated in the table below. It is noticeable that again growth rates have reduced as the car parks have neared capacity. Park and ride now accounts for 44 per cent of car parking in Chester (excluding on street parking, office parking and non council controlled car parks). Results Conclusions Discussion points connected with the development of park and ride sites include the use of green field land for the parking facilities. This often generates concern about environmental impact, which should be set against the beneficial impact of reducing pollution from traffic into the town/city centre. There is also debate as to whether a park and ride site results in a greater or lesser use of non park and ride public transport services. Abstraction rates can range from 10 to 28 per cent, depending upon a number of factors, including the quality and frequency of the local service. A number of schemes have failed to produce any decongestion benefits. This may be a result of previously suppressed demand that has refilled road space made available by the park and ride scheme. Park and ride sites may also have a negative impact by attracting people who previously made the whole journey by public transport. This might create capacity for other new journeys within the urban area, whilst conversely reducing patronage on marginal rural bus services. Although commercial viability tends not to be a key objective in park and ride strategy at the outset, a number of schemes have progressed over time into commercially run services. Park and ride generally requires frequent investment with vehicles tending to be replaced midlife. One of the incidental benefits of this is that these higher quality vehicles which were introduced to attract the private car user have now been transferred to local services.

The future
Many existing park and ride sites are looking to combine with more radical bus priority measures. In the case of Oxford this is the Expressway - a guided bus route and in Nottingham two park and ride sites which were originally bus based are now part of the rapid transit system. More recently established schemes are looking at potential for new sites and ways of increasing the capacity of the original network. Leicester, for example, is currently looking to add three new sites (2,500 car parking spaces) on routes into the city with associated bus lanes and signal priority.

References
English Historic Towns Forum, Bus-based park and ride - A Good Practice Guide, 2000. Oxfordshire County Council Good Practice Guides: www.oxfordshire.gov.uk.

- 129 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Parkhurst, G, Environmental cost - benefit of bus based park and ride systems, University of London Centre for Transport Studies, ESRC Transport Studies Unit, 1999. TAS, Park and Ride Great Britain 2003, TAS Publications and Events Ltd, 2003.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Cheshire County Council, Chester City Council, Leicester City Council, Oxfordshire County Council, York City Council and TAS. Other examples Nottingham Contact the Parking department at Nottingham City Council for further information on: 0115 9155555. Oxford Contact the Environment and Economy department for further information on: 01865 815700. York Contact the Environment and Development Services department for further information on: 01904 613161.

Further information
Further information on park and ride in Chester can be obtained from: Environment and Sustainability Department Cheshire County Council County Hall Chester Cheshire CH1 1SF 0845 113331 Further information on park and ride in Leicester can be obtained from the Public Transport Co-ordinator at Leicester City Council on: 0116 2232111.

The bus stop environment

- 130 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Description of need
Background Traffic congestion is not the only cause of delay to buses. The length of time that buses stand at bus stops can be a substantial component of overall journey time. Dwell time at bus stops has two main components - the time taken for passengers to board and alight, and delay in re-entering the flow of traffic where buses have stopped in lay-bys or at bus stops where the traffic stream can overtake with ease. Any measure that reduces delay and time spent at bus stops, or improves the environment for people waiting at bus stops, will make the bus a more attractive travel choice. This is the first of two case studies in which consideration is given to measures that complement bus priority. In this case study consideration is given to measures designed to help buses rejoin the main stream of traffic and to make the bus stop environment more attractive to users. Objectives The primary objective of the measures considered in this case study is to help to make travel by bus more attractive. A scheme to enable buses to move away from a bus stop and back into the traffic stream will contribute towards reducing journey times and improving reliability. Improvements to the environment at bus stops can contribute in a variety of ways; by making the waiting area safer and more attractive and by improving accessibility, for example. Implementation of complementary measures at bus stops will add to the impact of schemes to provide priority for buses.

Infrastructure measures
Problems Over time, many bus stops have been located in bus bays to enable other traffic to overtake safely buses picking up or setting down passengers at bus stops. Whilst this is a valid objective, it does result in delay to buses attempting to emerge from lay-bys and rejoin the main traffic stream because drivers of other vehicles are commonly reluctant to give way to buses. It is a particular problem in congested conditions. This problem has also led some bus drivers to avoid stopping at the kerb at bus stops in bus bays in order to make it easier to re-enter the traffic stream. This, in turn, led to problems of accessibility for elderly and disabled people because of the need to step down into the carriageway and step up on to the platform or first step of the bus. It also has the effect of increasing bus boarding and alighting times.

Solutions
Filled bus lay-bys One approach is to pave or infill the bus bay in order to re-create a flush kerb at which the bus stops in the nearside traffic lane. This is intended to enable the bus to resume its route without delay. An ancillary advantage is that this may provide more space for improved waiting facilities at the bus stop, including better quality shelters and seating. This does carry the possibility of delay to other traffic, particularly if the traffic lane is not wide enough to permit overtaking or if a second lane is not available. However, the bus is able to keep its place in the traffic stream and it helps to ensure that bus journey times are

- 131 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

comparable with car. It is important to consider safety and operational issues, such as, is the stop to be used as a layover point or service terminus, which may result in unnecessary delay to other vehicles. Before and after surveys were undertaken by TRL in London during 2002 and 2003 using video surveys and automatic traffic counts to monitor traffic flows, journey times and vehicle delays. The effect of filling lay-bys was to reduce passenger boarding times by between 0.5 and 1 second per passenger. Delay at the bus stops decreased by between 2 seconds on a road operating at 50 per cent of capacity and 4 seconds on a road at 70 per cent of capacity. Traffic delays increased by up to 11 seconds per vehicle on a one-lane road and 2 seconds on a two-lane road, but economic assessments based on the ’Bus Journey Time Savings’ spreadsheet produced by Transport for London (TfL) showed that the overall benefits to bus passengers outweighed the disadvantage to other road users by a ratio of more than 5 to 1. Bus lay-bys in bus lanes One situation where bus lay-bys are still being implemented is on bus lanes. This is particularly relevant in a bus lane with high frequency services running on it or where not all services call at all stops. A stationary bus in the bus lane waiting for passengers to board and alight would cause delays to services behind it that do not need to stop. If the bus were to be able to pull into a lay-by other services would be able to continue their journeys unimpeded. In such circumstances, the problem of pulling away from the bus stop is minimised because the bus is pulling out into a bus lane. Bus boarders Unrestricted or illegal parking often prevents buses reaching stops or aligning correctly with the kerb to ensure close and level boarding. Extending the footway out into the nearside lane to create a boarding and alighting platform, a bus boarder, may help to remove these sources of delay and to improve safety for passengers. Provision of a raised kerb at a bus boarder can be a further deterrent to obstructive car parking or stopping to pick up or set down passengers. Other vehicles may park in the lee of the boarder, but the position of the bus in the main flow is maintained and passengers may have easier access to the bus. Clearly, road width needs to be sufficient to permit the construction of a boarder without the possibility of a stopped bus blocking the passage of oncoming vehicles or without causing unacceptable delay to following traffic. The Department for Transport document "Inclusive Mobility" outlines that there are two types of bus boarder available: full width protruding into the carriage so that the bus avoids parked vehicles (approximately 1800 millimetres); and half width between 500 millimetres and 1500 millimetres wide providing a compromise between a full boarder and no boarder at all. These are appropriate for use where a full boarder would cause unacceptable delay to other vehicles or where the bus is too close to traffic coming in the opposite direction on the carriageway. Before and after surveys were undertaken by TRL in London in conjunction with TfL throughout 2003 for bus boarders including daytime video surveys and automatic traffic counts to monitor journey times and vehicle delays. On average, bus delays fell by between 1.3 seconds on a road operating at 50 per cent of

- 132 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

capacity and 1.8 seconds on a road at 70 per cent of capacity. Delays behind the bus increased by up to an average of 4.2 seconds per vehicle. Economic assessments based on ’Bus Journey Time Savings’ in this case indicated that bus boarders had a positive effect on low flow roads, but that benefit might be cancelled out by the delay to other traffic on high flow roads. It was estimated that roads operating at more than about 50 per cent of capacity might suffer a disadvantageous effect, while wider roads could potentially reduce the delay to other vehicles because of the greater possibility of passing the bus. However, note should also be taken of the width of the road and accessibility benefits to passengers. Increased accessibility to the bus was probably undervalued because, while reductions in stop time as a result of reduced boarding times were noticeable, no account was taken of the effects of increased accessibility for disabled passengers. Raised kerbs Improvements in accessibility at stops by installing raised kerbs and enabling the bus to kerb correctly not only addresses the issues of social exclusion by providing access for those with mobility impairments, but also enables quicker loading times to be achieved. Wheelchair users maybe able to board buses directly without using a ramp. The Department for Transport document "Inclusive Mobility" states that standard kerb heights range from 125 millimetres to 140 millimetres. Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive in the "Bus Stop Design Guidelines" suggests a kerb height of 160 millimetres provides the best compromise between accessibility while minimising damage to buses. The Greater Manchester design guidelines also outlines the minimum lengths for raised kerbs depending upon the number and frequency of services using the stop, they are as follows: 4 metres for a lightly used bus stops or stops that are only used for alighting; 7 metres for a single bus stop where only one bus will arrive at any one time; 16 metres at a double bus stop; 26 metres at a double bus stops used by standard 12 metres length buses and articulated buses; and the recommended length of raised kerb at bus boarders is 6 metres. Hull City Council has introduced raised kerbs at a number of its stops. However rather than installing a continuous length of raised kerb, double or triple boarders have been installed where two or more buses could be at the stop at the same time. Sections of raised kerb are separated by lengths of kerb of conventional height. Two or three buses are able to park close to the kerb providing full accessibility and loading simultaneously, whereas before the second or third bus would have had to wait for the previous bus to leave or not be able to pull in close to the kerb to stop.

Case study: Manchester bus stop treatment
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) consider bus stop design an integral part of any bus priority scheme. This includes the layout of the street furniture, street lighting, quality of the paving, information available at the stops and carriageway markings. The positioning of the stops is also important, the introduction of bus priority measures and quality bus corridors are an ideal time to review the location of stops on a route.

- 133 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

GMPTE have produced design guidelines for bus stops on ’Quality Bus Corridors’. The guidelines include details of consultation and covers recommended minimum standards for elements such as footway layout and carriageway markings at bus stops. The recommended footway layout includes: a band of coloured and textured surface along the kerb edge; a rectangular block of colour at the boarding point; a band of coloured and textured surface at the end of each bus stop at right angles to the kerb; and remaining areas within the stop boundaries to be surfaced in a contrasting coloured textured material. In order to protect the bus stop area from illegal parking and allow the bus to access the stop unimpeded, GMPTE recommend bus stops are covered by a bus clearway order and 300 millimetres wide yellow box markings are applied around the bus stop clearway carriageway marking. In addition to this a red cordon is marked around the yellow box, this measure has been effective in highlighting the bus stop area and preventing indiscriminate parking. Carriageway markings, based on Design Guidelines for bus stops Carriageway markings, based on Design Guidelines for bus stops

Conclusions
This leaflet has explored a number of improvement measures at bus stops that, in isolation, may only achieve a marginal benefit but, if implemented with new bus priority measures as part of a comprehensive scheme, can add to the impact of the overall scheme. A number of authorities including GMPTE have embraced a holistic approach to bus priority in which improvements to bus stop environment, layout and information provision are an integral part of a bus priority scheme.

References
DfT, Inclusive Mobility, November 2002. GMPTE, Design Guidelines for Bus Stops on Quality Bus Corridors in Greater Manchester, January 2002. TAS Partnership, Quality Bus Infrastructure a manual and guide, Landor Publishing and the TAS Partnership Ltd, June 2000.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Transport for London, TRL, Hull City Council and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive.

- 134 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Other examples
Holistic approach: West Midlands Bus Showcase (see special initiative case study in this pack). Norwich Western Corridor Quality Bus Partnership; contact Norfolk County Council on 01603 222205.

Further information
Further information on issues covered in this leaflet can be obtained from: TfL: customerservice@tfl-bus.co.uk GMPTE Quality Bus Corridor team on 0161 2426000 (switchboard).

Other measures
This is the second of two case studies in which consideration is given to measures that complement bus priority. In this case study, the matters addressed are: the importance of complementary measures; ticketing initiatives to reduce bus boarding times; the operation of buses in pedestrian priority areas; issue relating to pedestrian crossings and the benefits of working in partnership. The importance of complementary measures Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) carried out research on the impact of a range of different measures that could be implemented to complement bus priority measures. Interviews were carried out on three corridors which had been treated holistically and on three control corridors not included in the Quality Bus Corridor programme. Respondents were asked to rate whether they felt various aspects of their service had got better, stayed the same or got worse since they started using the bus. The biggest difference was in faster journey times where 25 per cent of those questioned on treated routes felt that this aspect was improved compared with 8 per cent on routes which had not been treated. A greater proportion of respondents on treated routes also felt that the reliability of bus services had improved (22 per cent) compared with 11 per cent of those on non-treated routes. The responses are summarised below: Responses to research on the impact of a range of different measures that could be implemented to complement bus priority measures Ticketing strategies The problem On busy bus services a substantial proportion of bus journey time can be spent waiting at bus stops as passengers board or alight, purchase tickets and/or show their travel passes. At peak times on many urban routes buses can spend as long standing at bus stops as they do in congested traffic. This is a particular problem on Monday mornings in places where weekly tickets can be bought from the bus driver.

- 135 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Passengers paying with cash can take twice as long as those passengers with pre-paid tickets creating delays for passengers already on the bus and those waiting to board. Additional work is created for the driver who has to operate the ticket machine and dispense change where necessary; this creates training issues for the operator and security issues for the driver. The solution Traditional methods of reducing time spent at bus stops include flat or exact fare policies or the deployment of conductors on buses or at busy bus stops (queue conductors). There are several other ways in which bus boarding times can be reduced: ⢠promotion of pre-paid off-bus ticket sales; provision of ticket issuing machines at some or all bus stops; and application of smartcard technology to all passengers or to particular categories of passengers (e.g. schoolchildren, elderly/disabled pass holders). The Oxford Bus Company anticipates a 50 per cent reduction in bus boarding times through the introduction of smartcards in Autumn 2004.

Case study: Bradford Firstcard
First Bradford introduced a smartcard known as Firstcard on all first services in Bradford in April 2000. The scheme proved popular and achieved its first 10,000 users by August 2000. Passengers simply place the card on the ticket machine reader and tell the driver where they are alighting; they are then issued with a ticket which tells them the value remaining on their smart card. The success of the scheme was recognised at The Bus Industry Awards in 2000 where First received a runners up award for the project and its aim to provide an easier and more convenient method of payment for bus travel in Bradford. The tickets can be ordered over the telephone or on the internet and can be loaded or renewed at Metro travel centres or at the First office. BusMiles operates as a loyalty scheme in connection with Firstcard to encourage passengers to use the card.

Case study: Ticketing initiatives in London
Transport for London (TfL) has gone one step further and introduced cashless buses in the area bounded by Paddington, Kings Cross, Waterloo and Victoria. Passengers must purchase their ticket from a machine at the stop or have a travel card, bus pass, freedom pass or saver ticket. By removing cash transactions on the bus it was felt significant reductions could be made in dwell time at stops. This initiative is also combined with the introduction of ’bendy buses’ which are able to carry up to 140 people and have three boarding doors. Eventually it is expected that the scheme will be rolled out to suburban areas. TfL has also launched a smartcard known as the Oyster card which is a card the size of a credit card with a microchip. The card can be ordered on line and recharged on line, by telephone or at a tube station. The technology has been fitted to 6,000 buses, 255 underground stations and 28 national railway stations served by the underground.

- 136 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The aims of the scheme are to: improve customer service; provide better information about customers travel patterns; and reduce opportunities for fraud. The tickets have the added advantage of allowing faster movement through ticket gates and on to buses, speeding up the journey time. The ticket does not have to be removed from its wallet to be used; passengers simply press the card against the reader, which reads it within a fraction of a second. In mid-2004 there were approximately 1.9 million active Oyster cards and take-up of the cards is expected to increase as further Oyster products and discounts are introduced.

Bus access to pedestrian priority areas
The redevelopment and regeneration of many high streets has involved the exclusion of vehicles with the intention of creating safe and pleasant pedestrian priority areas (PPAs). However, in order to maintain good public access without generating extra peripheral car traffic, exceptions have been made in many PPAs to allow buses and taxis and, in some places, trams to enter the zone. This allows public transport penetration of urban centres with central bus stops providing a realistic alternative to city centre parking. The design of PPAs and the extent to which a roadway has been maintained is highly variable. The flow of public transport and delivery vehicles may determine pedestrians’ perception of safety and their consequent tendency to wander freely throughout the PPA, rather than maintaining their conventional position on the footways. Allowing buses into a PPA needs very careful consideration to avoid damaging the environment that shoppers expect. Quality of the shopping environment can affect the choice of shopping centre, especially when there are nearby competing centres, and length of stay; both of which are important in maintaining the shopping street’s vitality and viability.

Zebra, pelican & puffin crossings
The provision of safe crossing facilities close to bus stops is a vital component of traffic management, road safety and bus priority schemes. It is generally accepted that pedestrians require assistance when crossing busy roads in safety and the zebra crossing has been a successful means of reconciling the conflicting demands of vehicular traffic and pedestrians for many years. However, where pedestrian flows are heavy or traffic speeds are high, zebra crossings may either impose inconvenient delay on vehicles, including buses, or become unsafe for pedestrians. Pelican crossings were designed to address this situation and to maintain traffic movements while providing extra protection for pedestrians. Puffin crossings are a refinement that seeks to minimise the potential delay to vehicles of a pelican crossing by reacting to the presence of a pedestrian on the crossing rather than holding traffic at a red signal when no pedestrians are present. Signalised crossings protect pedestrians more effectively than zebras, while minimising the delay to vehicles and hence assisting buses to maintain their schedules. Where possible, bus stops should be downstream of pedestrian crossings to reduce the amount of delay experienced by bus passengers.

- 137 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Before and after surveys were conducted during 2002 and 2003 by TRL in London. Overall traffic delays decreased when a pelican crossing was introduced at three study sites with the lowest pedestrian flow, but increased at the fourth site where flows were higher. Modelling indicated that vehicles were delayed less at pelicans then zebras when pedestrian flows were less than 60 per hour. However traffic delays appeared shorter at zebra crossings with medium pedestrian flows.

Holistic approach - quality partnerships
Quality Bus Partnerships (QBPs) are formal or informal agreements between local authorities, bus operators and other relevant parties to provide an agreed level of quality of service and infrastructure along a certain route or routes. Alternatively, they may be a more general agreement relating to the general service or infrastructure provision. QBPs are an efficient way of achieving strategic objectives of all those involved as they result in co-ordination of actions between relevant organisations and the exchange of information. Partnership working is essential where a holistic approach is proposed in order to ensure co-ordination of improvements to maximise impact. In some cases it may be possible to deliver all of the components of a scheme at once but, where schemes are complex and involve substantial investment in bus priority and route infrastructure phased implementation may be necessary. The local authority role in a Partnership is to deliver bus priority and traffic management schemes supported by complementary measures including accessibility at bus stops, improvements to the waiting environment and more comprehensive information for passengers. Local authorities also have the lead role in consultation during scheme development and implementation. The role of the bus operator is to invest in new high quality buses and in upgrading the quality or level of service. The level of improvement in reliability and journey times that can be achieved is governed, to a considerable extent, by the time savings that can be delivered by bus priority, traffic management and complementary measures. Marketing, promotion and monitoring are commonly joint responsibilities of local authorities and operators.

References
DfT, Inclusive Mobility, November 2002. TAS Partnership, Quality Bus Infrastructure a manual and guide, Landor Publishing and the TAS Partnership Ltd, June 2000.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Transport for London (TfL), TRL, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive and First Bradford.

- 138 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Other examples
Ticketing strategies: Cheshire County Council Smartcard. Holistic approach: West Midlands Bus Showcase (see special initiative case study in this pack). Norwich Western Corridor Quality Bus Partnership; contact Norfolk County Council on: 01603 222205.

Further information
Further information on issues raised in this leaflet can be obtained from: TfL at customerservice@tfl-bus.co.uk

Performance indicators & monitoring
Why do we need to monitor performance?
Bus priority is central to improving the speed and reliability of services. Different techniques have been used across the country. We have to evaluate them to see how they: benefit bus operators and passengers; affect other road users; operate effectively; may need improving; and give value for money. It is important to test whether bus priority schemes have met their stated objectives, firstly to ensure local accountability, and secondly to see whether the same type of scheme would work in similar circumstances elsewhere. This is particularly important where innovative bus priority measures are being tried for the first time. Performance indicators assess important aspects of a new scheme. They allow us to judge whether it has benefited bus users or whether the scheme needs to be modified. Performance indicators from different schemes can also provide stakeholders with evidence of what works. This will help with the continued development of bus priority. Monitoring statistics should be straightforward and easy to collect, and should form the basis of useful performance indicators. Monitoring resources should be proportionate to the overall cost of the scheme. They should also be built into the scheme costs early in the planning and appraisal stage. ’Before’ and ’after’ monitoring may necessarily be limited for smaller schemes. More complex schemes may need a wider programme of monitoring. Bus priority performance indicators and monitoring

- 139 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus priority performance indicators and monitoring Different types of bus priority scheme require specific monitoring methods. The full range of monitoring parameters and performance indicators is shown below. These can be used to assess different bus priority schemes, although only a subset of them would be required to investigate any given scheme. In general the scale and type of monitoring should relate to what a particular measure aims to achieve. Core and additional monitoring parameters Core and additional monitoring parameters We can distinguish between core and additional monitoring parameters and performance indicators. Core indicators are the minimum that should be collected, and additional indicators are those that could help explain further how the scheme is performing. Six core indicators are described below.

Bus service improvements
Bus journey times Buses can be timed along a section of a route both before and after schemes are implemented. Bus journey times are likely to reduce as a result of bus priority measures. Sample sizes will depend on the variability of the bus journey time and the expected benefit. Reliability One of the main factors in passenger perception of bus services is reliability. This performance indicator records the difference between timetabled and actual arrival times at one or more points in the scheme on low frequency routes. This shows any improvements in reliability. On higher frequency routes, the variation in headways (the interval between consecutive buses travelling on a route) can be used.

Improvements for passengers
Bus use trends Better bus services can attract people from other forms of transport or encourage people to use the bus for trips they might otherwise not have taken. This increases bus patronage. Any changes need to be seen in context with the underlying trends in the area. The most appropriate way to assess the effect of bus priority schemes on patronage is by carrying out ’before’ and ’after’ surveys. For smaller schemes, it may be enough to simply compare ticket sales on a route that has benefited from bus priority measures with sales on one that hasn’t. Bus stop waiting times The time it takes to pick up and drop off passengers is a significant proportion of the total journey time. Clearly this will relate to the number of passengers getting on and off. So if bus passenger numbers increase, buses are likely to spend longer at bus stops. As a result, some journey time saving from bus priority measures may not be fully realised.

- 140 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Effects on other traffic
Car journey times Car journey times can be measured to see whether bus priority has caused any significant delays. The main technique for this is matching the number plates of vehicles travelling in a corridor between two or more fixed points. Car, lorry and cycle counts We can measure the levels of different types of traffic such as cars, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), light goods vehicles (LGVs), buses and cycles. Traffic flows can reveal whether vehicles are switching to alternative routes and, in some cases, the extent to which motorists are switching to buses. However, only detailed surveys can reveal the underlying reasons for any change.

An example approach
Bus priority strategy Improve bus service reliability. Improve bus speeds. Increase patronage. Reduce car dependency. Improve bus services. Provide value for money. Targets (5 Years) Improve reliability 15 per cent. Faster bus speeds 10 per cent. Increase patronage 20 per cent. Reduce congestion 20 per cent. Implement three quality corridors. Action plan Introduce on-street bus priority (with-flow bus lanes). Innovative methods (contra-flow bus lanes). Innovative methods (traffic signal priority). New wheelchair accessible buses. High quality bus stop facilities. Enhanced pedestrian facilities to access bus stops.

- 141 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Monitoring Bus/car journey times. Car journey times on parallel routes. Queue length surveys. Bus reliability surveys. Traffic counts for area. Number of bus passengers. Bus stop dwell times. Results Two corridors implemented, third delayed by longer than anticipated consultation process. Reliability, journey time and patronage targets on the two implemented corridors met or exceeded. Congestion targets not met: revisions made to signal timings on parallel routes.

Frequently asked questions
The following questions are typical of those that people frequently ask during public consultation on bus priority measures. You could adapt the questions and suggested answers to suit your own public consultation. Remember that this is not a definitive list of questions and it obviously cannot deal with specific schemes. You may need to add information about your proposed scheme and it may also be useful to include details of the number of buses using different routes, and the numbers of passengers that they carry.

Residents
Why should residents like me care about bus priority? Bus priority would bring welcome benefits to you, your neighbours and your community as a whole. Bus priority helps make buses faster and more reliable, so more people are likely to use them. This in turn will lead to less congestion and pollution in your area. You may even choose to use the bus, avoiding the stresses of driving and parking. There is no need for a bus lane at this location. I drive along this road everyday and there are rarely any delays. Why can’t you leave things as they are? Buses are used most during the morning and afternoon peak hours, which is not necessarily when local residents use the roads. Before we develop proposals for bus priority, we carry out traffic surveys to find where delays occur and how severe they are. Delays often reduce the interval between buses, causing them to ’bunch’. Then several arrive at once after a long wait for people at the bus stop. You are planning to install a bus lane near my house. I am concerned about the loss of resident parking in the area. Where am I going to park?

- 142 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

We will balance the need for resident parking with the operating hours of the bus lane. If the bus priority improvements affect parking facilities in your area, we will do everything practical to provide alternatives. You are planning to install a bus lane outside my house. The road is already very congested and will your proposals not make the problem worse? We hope the bus lane will make the situation better. You are right to be concerned about congestion and, if we do nothing, the problem will certainly get worse: traffic is predicted to increase by another 30 per cent over the next 10 years. We can’t widen your road (and we’re sure you wouldn’t want us to) so a bus lane is the best way to cut congestion. I live on a side street next to where the bus lane is proposed. I am concerned that it will make it difficult and possibly dangerous to turn into my street. Any bus lanes we introduce will be designed to allow traffic to continue making any manoeuvres and turns that they make at the moment. What’s more, all bus lanes are designed according to stringent Government guidelines which have been fully vetted for safety. Independent safety experts also carefully examine all bus lane proposals before they are implemented. So any safety concerns will be fully investigated before any work begins. I regularly use the road where you propose putting a bus lane and I see far fewer buses than other types of vehicle. Why should traffic be further delayed for the low number of buses that use the road? On average, a typical double decker bus can carry as many people as 55 cars. It therefore makes sense to give buses greater priority to complete their journeys faster and more reliably. This will help make buses more attractive and encourage people to switch from car to bus. More bus use and less car use will help cut congestion and pollution in your area. You are planning to install a bus lane near where I live. Will this turn my road into a ’rat run’ for cars? If it seems likely that your road will become a ’rat run’ for cars, then we will look at introducing appropriate traffic management measures in consultation with your local community to prevent this. Which vehicles are allowed to use bus lanes and when? Bus lanes need to be clearly signed to help people understand who can legally use them and when. Signs are required at the start of a bus lane, after each junction and at intervals along sections of road where there are no junctions. These signs show which vehicles can use a bus lane. Typically buses and cyclists only can use bus lanes. Taxis are frequently allowed to use them too. The signs also give the bus lane’s hours of operation. This might be during the weekday (Monday to Friday) peak hours only (e.g. 7.00am to 10.00am) or for a longer period (e.g. 7.00am to 7.00pm). Where there is a need to do so, 24 hour bus lanes can be introduced. During the hours of operation only vehicles identified on the signs can use a bus lane. Outside of these hours, all traffic can use a bus lane. Buses are large, noisy vehicles. Does the bus lane mean that I must look forward to an increase in heavy traffic, noises and emissions near my house?

- 143 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Buses come in a range of shapes and sizes. They range from small hopper buses up to large double decker buses to meet high demand on busy routes. New buses today are much quieter than they were ten years ago as a result of legislation limiting noise levels. Buses are increasingly fuel-efficient and ’green and clean’. European legislation is imposing increasingly strict limits on vehicle emissions. Most bus operators have more new buses that produce lower levels of noise and pollution. New quieter and less-polluting buses are usually introduced where local councils and bus operators set up Quality Bus Partnerships to give priority to buses. Bus priority measures, such as bus lanes, help deliver faster, more reliable bus services. More attractive bus services encourage people to switch from car to bus use and this, in turn, will help reduce congestion in your local area.

Commerce
Why should local companies care about bus priority? Bus priority helps to make local bus services faster and more reliable, which will make them more attractive to both your employees and customers. More bus use and less car use will result in less congestion and leave more road space for transporting goods and services. Your company may wish to develop a travel plan for your employees to encourage them to catch the bus or use other forms of sustainable transport (e.g. cycle). An effective travel plan has real benefits: a less problematic, stressful journey to work; improvements in health for employees who walk and/or cycle more and the opportunity to reuse space in the workplace currently used for staff car parking. There is no need for a bus lane here. Why can’t you leave things as they are? If we do nothing, it is estimated that traffic volumes nationally will increase by 28 per cent by the year 2011, and by 60 per cent by the year 2031. It is also estimated that congestion costs companies that transport freight approximately £1.2 billion a year. Clearly we have to do something. Encouraging people to leave the car at home and catch the bus is one practical solution. Before we develop any proposals for bus priority, we survey the traffic along the route to see where delays occur and how severe they are. Local bus operators also provide crucial information on delays to their services. If there is evidence that buses are being held up by congestion, then bus priority measures are likely to be needed. You are planning to install a bus lane near our company. I am concerned about the loss of parking in the area. Where are our employees going to park? The bus lane’s operating hours will be balanced with the local need for parking. If bus priority measures affect parking facilities in your area, we will look at providing alternative arrangements. However, we hope that by making bus services more reliable, more people will choose to use them to travel to and from work, including your employees. This will clearly solve some local parking problems and help reduce the conflicts that can occur when people park on residential roads while they are at work. I am in charge of arranging deliveries for my company. How am I going to arrange deliveries when a bus lane will mean extra loading restrictions?

- 144 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

We will do everything we can to maintain loading facilities in your area to support local businesses. The bus lane restrictions are likely to permit loading in the middle of the day, outside the peak hours. Alternatively, we will do what we can to replace existing loading areas with alternative facilities in your area. However, as the demand for road space continues to grow, it may be necessary for deliveries to be made outside normal working hours.

Industry
Why should local industry care about bus priority? If we do nothing, it is estimated that traffic volumes nationally will increase by 28 per cent by the year 2011, and by 60 per cent by the year 2031. It is also estimated that congestion costs companies that transport freight approximately £1.2 billion a year. Clearly we have to do something. Encouraging people to leave the car at home and catch the bus is one practical response. Bus priority helps to make local bus services faster and more reliable, which will make them more attractive to both your employees and customers. More bus use and less car use will result in less congestion and leave more road space for transporting goods and services. Your company may wish to develop a travel plan for your employees to encourage them to catch the bus or use other forms of sustainable transport (e.g. cycle). An effective travel plan has real benefits: a less problematic, stressful journey to work; improvements in health for employees who walk and/or cycle more and the opportunity to re-use space in the workplace currently used for staff car parking. There is no need for a bus lane here. Why can’t you leave things how as are? Before we develop any proposals for bus priority, we survey the traffic along the route to see where delays occur and how severe they are. Local bus operators also provide crucial information on delays to their services. If there is evidence that buses are being held up by congestion, then bus priority measures are likely to be needed. I am the human resources manager at a large warehouse. How will the bus lane proposals affect employee parking in the area? The bus lane’s operating hours will be balanced with the local need for parking. If bus priority measures affect parking facilities in your area, we will look at providing alternative arrangements. However, we hope that by making bus services more reliable, more people will choose to use them to travel to and from work, including your employees. This will clearly solve some local parking problems and help reduce the conflicts that can happen when people park on residential roads while they are at work. There is also a business case for reducing the number of car parking spaces. Each parking space is estimated to cost £500 a year, before taking into account the loss of that space for a more productive use. This is why companies like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithkline and Boots have developed effective travel plans which aim to reduce their employees’ reliance on the car and make best possible use of their sites.

- 145 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Signs & regulations
Introduction
Road markings and signs serve an important function in conveying clear and consistent information and requirements to all road users. They must be used in combination and in line with current guidance in order to promote road safety and efficient traffic flow. Use of the most appropriate signs and markings will also improve the streetscape, minimising street clutter and encouraging adherence to regulations. This leaflet identifies enforceable signs and markings for bus lanes. Information on both with-flow and contra-flow lanes are provided, including examples of signs and road markings for a range of common design scenarios. The content of this document is based upon The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and is correct at the time of publishing. It is essential that the latest version of this, and the Traffic Signs Manual, is referred to in order to ensure that schemes are developed in accordance with current regulations.

With-flow bus lanes
With-flow bus lanes, where buses travel in the same direction as the traffic in the adjacent lane is the most common bus priority measure. A with-flow bus lane is normally placed on the near side of the road. The diagram to the below shows a layout (without pedestrian crossings) for a with-flow lane reserved for buses and cycles, showing both the signing and the road markings. With-flow bus lanes Signing If a with-flow bus lane which is also used by pedal cycles and can be used by taxis, is located ahead, the sign to diagram 958 should be used, varied as appropriate (ie to include or not "taxi"). It is located 30 metres in advance of the taper when the 85th percentile approach speed does not exceed 30mph, and 45 metres when this speed exceeds 30mph. The sign needs to be sited so it is clearly visible from 30 metres for the lower speed, and 45 metres for higher speeds. The sign to diagram 959 should be used in conjunction with the road marking ’BUS LANE’. The sign should appear at the commencement of the bus lane and at intervals not exceeding 300 metres along uninterrupted lengths of the lane. It is also used after each junction that the bus lane breaks for. If there is a junction ahead where the left hand lane is dedicated to buses only and left turning vehicles need to use the lane, then the sign to diagram 877 should be used. On primary routes the background colour of the sign should be varied to green with white symbols and borders.

- 146 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

For the end of a bus lane, the sign shown to diagram 964 should be used. Diagram 962 should be placed on side roads from which traffic may emerge. The arrow indicates which direction the bus lane is flowing. When there are bus lanes in both directions the arrow is removed and "lane" varied to "lanes". The bus symbol may be varied to the local bus symbol on all signs with blue background.

Road markings
Bus lanes are separated from the main carriageway by a marking to diagram 1049. The width of these markings is either 250 or 300mm depending on the site conditions. The start of the bus lane is marked with diagram 1010 at the same width as 1049, and laid at a taper no sharper than 1:10. The road marking ’BUS LANE’ to diagram 1048 should appear at the commencement of the bus lane and at intervals not exceeding 300 metres along uninterrupted lengths of the lane. It should also be used where the bus lane continues after a junction. The deflection arrows to diagram 1014 should be placed at two positions (15m and 30m) upstream of the taper. When the bus lane passes a junction with a major left turn into a side road, the boundary line of the bus lane should be replaced with a broken line to diagram 1010. This should commence 30m in advance of the junction. The broken line should be accompanied by the advisory direction arrow (diagram 1050) varied to show a left turn. At other junctions, the boundary line (diagram 1049) marking should be terminated approximately 10m before the junction and recommence beyond the junction in combination with a marking to diagram 1010.

Contra-flow bus lanes
Contra-flow bus lanes allow buses to travel against the main direction of traffic flow. Cyclists may be allowed to use contra-flow bus lanes. If cyclists are allowed to use a particular contra-flow bus lane, then the cycle symbol must be shown on both the appropriate signs and the lane markings. The figure here shows an example of a contra-flow layout, showing both the signing and lane markings for buses only. Contra-flow bus lanes Signing On the approach to a contra-flow bus lane, the sign to diagram 877 should be used to advise all other vehicles that there is no entry to the bus lane ahead.

- 147 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The start of a contra-flow lane is signed by using the sign to diagram 953 (with or without a cycle symbol, as appropriate) and diagram 953.2. These signs are repeated after every break in the bus lane and at junctions. The sign to diagram 960 should be located so that it can be viewed by traffic travelling in the opposite direction to the contra-flow bus lane. This is also repeated at every break in the bus lane for junctions. A white cycle symbol may be added below the bus symbol and the downward pointing arrow moved across to the right (see DfT working drawing P960). The bus symbol may be varied to the local bus symbol on all signs with a blue background. Advance information should always be given to traffic entering from side roads, using the sign to diagram 962 along with diagram 609. At the junction of side roads the sign to diagram 606 is used. If buses are exempt from the left only turn then both diagram 609 and diagram 606 are supplemented with a sign to diagram 954, 954.2 or 954.3 At pedestrian crossing places, ’BUS LANE LOOK LEFT / LOOK RIGHT’ signs to diagram 963 should be used. These are pedestrian signs and therefore face the footways.

Road markings
The road markings for a contra-flow lane reserved for buses are shown here. The bus lane is separated from the rest of the carriageway by the continuous line prescribed in diagram 1049. The marking should be discontinued where it passes traffic islands and angled to guide vehicles from each direction to pass the obstruction. At junctions on the near side of the road, the bus lane should be discontinued. However, a broken line is not necessary on the approach to a junction since there will be no left turning traffic, except possibly buses. Bus lane markings (either diagram 1048.1 or 1048) together with direction arrows to diagram 1038 should appear at both ends of the lane so that they can be read by drivers approaching the contra-flow lane. The direction of possible traffic movements at the end of a bus lane is indicated by diagram 1050.

Coloured road surfaces
Bus lanes may be surfaced in coloured material in order to emphasise their presence and discourage encroachment by other vehicles. However, coloured surfacing has no legal significance; it is the prescribed traffic signs and road markings which establish the legal status of a bus lane. Traffic signs Bus lanes at pedestrian crossings Not all authorities seem to be aware that bus lane markings are not permitted within the controlled area of a pedestrian crossing. A bus lane must be terminated at the start of the ziz-zags and may pick up again at the end of the zig-zags on the far side of the crossing. If the road surface is coloured for the bus lane, this may be continued through the controlled area (marked with zig-zags). If a coloured surface has been used

- 148 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

for a bus lane, this may be continued through the controlled area (although not through the crossing itself).

24 hour Bus Lanes
For most 24 hour bus lanes the signs to diagrams 958 and 959 do not require time plates. The time plates are only used where a 24 hour bus lane is not far from another lane that shows times of operation less than 24 hours.

Bus gates
Bus gates restrict entry at one end of a street to buses only. The entrance to a bus gate should be marked with diagram 1048.3 BUS ONLY or 1048.4 BUS AND (cycle symbol) ONLY (permitted variant is of 1048.4 is to include "Taxi").

Waiting and loading restrictions
The order creating a bus lane will prohibit waiting during its operational hours. Yellow lines are necessary only if the waiting restrictions cover some period when the bus lane is not in operation. Loading and unloading is permitted unless it is specifically prohibited, in which case kerb marks and corresponding upright signs are required.

Common problems and mistakes in bus priority signing
A common mistake is to put a cycle symbol in the marking for a with-flow bus lane. This is unlawful, as diagram 1048.1 may only be used in contra-flow lanes in order to indicate those where cyclists are admitted. Cyclists are always allowed to use with-flow bus lanes as indicated on diagram 958 / 959. It is considered to be dangerous to keep them outside between buses and other traffic. If a bus lane is placed on the right hand side of the road, or anywhere other than the near side of the road, signs will require special authorisation.

Prohibited combinations of plates with no entry sign
The combination of the no entry sign (diagram 616) with any of the plates to diagrams 954.3, 954.6 or 954.7 as shown here, is prohibited in the Regulations (TSRGD, 2002) and must not be used. Prohibited combinations of plates with no entry sign References LTN1 / 97 Keeping Buses Moving. (ISBN 0-11-551914-9), TSO, 1997. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. 2002 SI 2002 No. 3113, TSO, 2002.

- 149 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5, TSO, 2003. Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, TSO, 1986.

Bibliography
Astrop AJ, Balcombe RJ and Daugherty GG (1997 not published). The Performance of Bus Priority Measures in Brighton. PR/TT/024/97. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Astrop AJ and Balcombe RJ (1995). Performance of Bus Priority Measures in Shepherds Bush. TRL140. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Balcombe R and York I (1999). Bus Priority: Monitoring and Evaluation. TRL Annual Research Review 1998 pp. 18 - 23. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Bowen GT (1997). Bus Priority in SCOOT. TRL Report 255. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Bus Priority and Traffic Unit (1999). Bus Priority Measures. Annual Review 1999. DETR. CENTRO (1994). Bus Priority Monitoring Report: Appraisal Section. CENTRO, Birmingham. Cleveland County Council (1995). Bus Priority Measures in Central Middlesborough - Effects of the New Traffic Arrangements. Department of Environment, Development and Transportation, Cleveland County Council. Cloke J and Hopkin J (TRL); Hounsell NB and Lyons G (Southampton University) (2000). Monitoring and Evaluation of the ENTRANCE Project in Hampshire - Summary Report. TRL Report 415. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 2000. Commission for Integrated Transport (2002). Public Attitudes to Transport in England. A survey carried out by MORI. Daugherty GG and Balcombe RJ (1999). Leeds Guided Busway Study. TRL410. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Daugherty GG, Balcombe RJ and Astrop AJ (1999). A Comparative Assessment of Major Bus Priority Schemes in Great Britain. TRL Report 409. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

- 150 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

DETR (March 2003). Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/03. Public Transport Priority. Traffic Advisory Unit. DETR (April 2001). Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/01. Bus Priority. Traffic Advisory Unit. DETR (December 2000). Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/00. Bus Priority in SCOOT. Traffic Advisory Unit. DETR (1999). From Workhorse to Thoroughbred. A Better Role for Bus Travel. DETR. DETR (April 1997). Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/97. Rising Bollards. Traffic Advisory Unit. DETR (January 1997). Local Transport Note 1/97. Keeping Buses Moving: A Guide to Traffic Management to Assist Buses in Urban Areas. The Stationery Office. English Historic Towns Forum (May 2000). Bus-based Park and Ride. English Historic Towns Forum. Gardner K and Cobain P (1997). Bus Priorities: A Solution to Urban Congestion? Transport, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, v.123 n.4, November 1997, pp. 205 - 212. Gardener K and Metzger D (1997). Uxbridge Road bus priority demonstration project. Proceedings of Seminar K (Traffic Management and Road Safety), 25th PTRC European Transport Forum, pp. 63 - 74. Greater London Authority (June 2001). Improving London’s Bus Services: An Assembly investigation into the quality and performance of London’s Buses. GLA. Hounsell NB and McLeod F et al (2000). Headway-based bus priority in London using AVL - First results. 10th International Conference - Road Transport Information & Control, 4 - 6 April 2000, pp. 205 - 208. Hounsell NB and McLeod F et al (1996). PROMPT: Field Trial and simulation results of bus priority in SCOOT. 8th International Conference (IEE) on Road Traffic Monitoring and Control, 1996, pp. 90 - 94. Hounsell NB and McDonald M (1985 - 93). Evaluation of Bus Lanes. CR87. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Institution of Highways and Transportation (1997). Transport in the Urban Environment. Institution of Highways and Transportation. Chapter 24 Measures to Assist Public Transport, pp. 329 - 348.

- 151 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

JMP Consultants Ltd. (2000). London Bus Priority Network. South West Sector, Bus Priority Study. Route 93 Monitoring Study. Final Report. London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. JMP Consultants Ltd. (1999). London Bus Priority Network. South West Sector, Bus Priority Study. Route 65 Monitoring Study. London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. King GN (London Transport Buses) (1998). Roads as "people movers": The Real Case for Bus Priority. Traffic Management and Safety. Proceedings of seminars J and K at the European Transport Conference, 1998 vol. p. 428. London Bus Initiative Partnership (2000). London Bus Initiative - Framework Document. London Bus Initiative Partnership. London Bus Initiative Partnership (2000). Bus Priority Literature Review. London Bus Initiative Partnership. London Bus Initiative Partnership (2000). Bus Stop Layouts for Low Floor Bus Accessibility. Transport for London. London Bus Initiative Partnership (2000). Bus Stop Layouts for Articulated Buses. Transport for London. Oakes JAJ, Thellmann AM and Kelly IT (1994). Innovative Bus Priority Measures. PTRC 22nd Summer Annual Meeting, Seminar J, 1994, pp. 301 - 312. Seaman D and Heggie N (1999). Comparative Evaluation of Greenways and Bus Priority Lanes. Traffic Management, Safety and Intelligent Transport Systems. Proceedings of Seminar D at the AET European Transport Conference 1999, Vol. P432 0115 - 32. TEN (1998). Bus Priority and Traffic Management. Television Education Network, Session Guide. TEN. The TAS Partnership (2001). Quality Bus Partnership. Good Practice Guide. DETR - The TAS Partnership. Transport for London (2001). Bus Lane Enforcement. Transport for London. TRL Limited (2002). Bus Priority Measures Update 2000 - 2002. TRL Information Centre, Current topics in transport no. 19.3. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. TRL, University of Southampton and University of Portsmouth (1999). Monitoring and Evaluation of a Public Transport Priority Scheme in Southampton. TRL413. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1999.

- 152 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

WS Atkins (East Anglia 1997). A1309 Milton Road Bus Lanes - Before and After Survey Study. Final report. Cambridgeshire County Council. Wu J and Hounsell NB (1998). Bus Priority Using Pre-Signals. Transportation Research (Southampton Institute), Part A. York I (1999). The Potential of Bus Priority. RR/TT/132/99. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. York I (1998). Comparison of Bus Service Improvements. PR/TT/049/98. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

Glossary
Expression ASTRID database Explanation ASTRID - Automatic SCOOT TRaffic Information Database. The ASTRID database system ‘has been developed to use information from SCOOT (see below) to provide a historical background of traffic conditions. The system continuously monitors and stores traffic conditions for later retrieval and analysis. The system can also act as a reference against which to compare current traffic conditions. Survey of attitudes, perceptions and views, in this context concerning opinions on bus priority measures. An automated counting device that counts the number of vehicles that pass through/over a sensor planted in or near a road. Automatic Vehicle Location is the next step up from SVD (see below) and allows operators to be able to locate individual buses within the fleet. Combined with a two-way system of communication, AVL technology can relay emergency and status information to individual vehicles and/or their control centres, contributing to better management and deployment of vehicles. The area between the bus pre-signal (see below) and the main junction. Area of carriageway created by realigning the kerb. An extension of the footway into the carriageway in the vicinity of a bus stop. Enables the bus to easily access the kerb and pick up/drop off passengers at locations where there is a high demand from other vehicles for kerb side access. Bus gates are located at the point(s) of access to bus only lanes. The purpose of these is to ensure the compliance of other vehicle users. Bus gates can be traffic signals, actuated by the buses, or physical barriers surmountable only by buses, for example, rising bollards. Bus gates could also be signs such as ’No Entry Except Local Buses’.

Attitudinal surveys Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)

Bus advance area Bus bays Bus boarders

Bus gate

- 153 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus lane

An area of carriageway reserved, using a Traffic Regulation Order (or a Traffic Management Order in London), for the use of buses and other permitted vehicles where indicated. The distance between the end of the bus lane and a downstream junction. Traffic signals at the end of a bus lane that allow buses to enter the bus advance area in front of other traffic. Bus priority measures cover a number of techniques and schemes that are concerned with improving bus operation with the aim of improving service, reliability and/or reducing bus journey times. A traffic signal aspect that specifically applies to buses which is a bus symbol. Road markings indicating the area on the carriageway used by buses to approach, stop and exit at bus stops to allow safe boarding and alighting by passengers. A regime introduced by a Traffic Regulation Order that prohibits stopping within a bus cage by all vehicles with the exemptions of buses during set times (e.g. at all times, or 07.00 to midnight Monday to Saturday). Buses in this bus lane travel in the opposite direction to traffic in adjacent lanes. Dot matrix display installed at bus stops to provide customers with real time information (see below) regarding bus arrivals. The time taken to complete a unique series of signal stages. Sections of kerbline provided at the same level as the carriageway allowing mobility impaired pedestrians access between the footway and the carriageway. Time that a bus spends stationary at a stop. An intelligent vehicle detector which is laid in the road surface. This is a passive detection method since the technology doesn’t rely on vehicle based communication. PRISM can recognise different vehicle types from their signal as they pass over the inductive loop. A bus that travels on its own dedicated carriageway or track which ’guides’ the steering of the bus. The interval between consecutive buses travelling on a route. Sites where major delay is experienced on the bus network. A cable embedded in the highway used to record the presence or passage of a vehicle on or across that section of the highway.

Bus lane setback Bus pre-signals Bus priority

Bus signal aspects Bus stop cage

Bus stop clearway

Contra-flow bus lane Countdown Cycle time Drop kerbs Dwell time Footprint

Guided bus Headway Hot spots Inductive loops

- 154 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Intergreen LINSIG Location beacons

Time period between traffic signal stages in which no vehicles or pedestrians receive a green aspect. Computer programme used to design traffic signal stages and their sequence and duration at an isolated signal. Roadside infrastructure which detects the presence of buses as they pass a defined location. Used in conjunction with real time information systems.

London Bus Priority The 33 local authorities in London, together with London Transport, the Network Department for Transport and the Government Office for London are developing a London wide Bus Priority Network with the aim of improving reliability, travel times and the convenience of bus services. The London Bus Priority Network consists of about 540 miles of routes and its development and implementation is being coordinated by the London Borough of Bromley. Manual classified traffic counts Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) Park and ride Manual counts are undertaken by an operative located near the road with a manual hand held counting device or video recording equipment. Allows flexible control of traffic signals at isolated junctions.

Park and ride is a system where cars are parked in a car park outside of the town centre and access is provided to the town centre by a frequent dedicated bus service operating between the park and ride facility and locations within the town. The purpose of this parking strategy is to alleviate traffic congestion on roads in and around the town centre.

Passenger Transport Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) are the professional and executive arms Executives (PTEs) of the six metropolitan Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs). They are responsible for implementing the policies set down by their PTAs both on their own initiative (using public money raised by the PTAs from a levy on local tax payers) and in partnership with others. Person trip miles Phase Priority vehicle lane Prism Also known as passenger miles, this measure indicates distances undertaken by passengers on different modes of transport. Traffic movement(s) which is controlled by a single signal aspect. This can include pedestrians, cycles or general traffic. An area of carriageway reserved, using a Traffic Regulation Order, for the use of buses, bicycles, goods vehicles and taxis. An intelligent vehicle detector which is laid in the road surface. This is a passive detection method since the technology doesn’t rely on vehicle based communication. PRISM can recognise different vehicle types from their signal as they pass over the inductive loop.

- 155 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

PROMPT

Acronym for EC Drive 2 Project ’PRiority and infOrMatics in Public Transport’ which developed the active bus priority facility now available within SCOOT (see below). The term is now used as a reference to this facility, particularly in London. A partnership between local highways authorities and bus operators designed to improve the quality and reliability of the bus services. Rat running is the term used to describe traffic that uses alternative, often residential, routes to avoid congested roads to get to their destination. This leads to a build up of often fast moving traffic on roads ill equipped to accommodate commuter traffic and can be hazardous and unpleasant for residents. A system providing information as it occurs. Increasingly used to provide up to date information at bus stops on the expected arrival time of a particular bus. Red Routes have been introduced in London (now called Transport for London Road Network or TLRN). One of the primary aims is eliminating illegal or inappropriate parking on bus routes through: the implementation of double red lines; improved signage of existing car parks; better provision for parking and for loading and unloading; in addition to better enforcement of parking restrictions. Rising bollards are a type of bus gate that prohibit access for other vehicles to bus only lanes. The maximum rate of traffic discharge from a continuous queue at a stopline. SCOOT is a tool for managing and controlling traffic signals in urban areas. It is an adaptive system that responds automatically to fluctuations in traffic flow through the use of on-street detectors embedded in the road. Bus Scoot is a facility incorporated into SCOOT to give priority to buses. Part of the traffic signal cycle during which a particular set of phases receives green. Stakeholders can be defined as individuals or organisations that have invested resources, whether they be financial or personal inputs, i.e. time and experience, into a project. Examples of stakeholders in bus priority projects are bus operators, local highway authorities, bus passengers, local resident groups and local businesses (involvement dependent on specific measure). Public utility companies covering gas, water, electricity and telephone, etc such as Transco, British Telecom, NTL. Enables buses to be detected separately from other vehicles through the use of fitted transponders, thus allowing them priority at signal controlled junctions.

Quality Bus Partnerships Rat running

Real time information Red Route

Rising bollards Saturation flow SCOOT

Stage Stakeholder

Statutory undertakers Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD)

- 156 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

TIRIS

Texas Instruments Registration and Identification System (TIRIS) is a radio frequency identification (RFID) system based on low frequency FM transmission techniques. The three major parts of the system are the transponder, antenna and reader. This approach has good resistance to broadband noise whilst being very cost effective to implement. The Texas Instruments Registration and Identification System (TIRIS) is a radio frequency identification system based on low frequency FM transmission techniques. The core of the system is a small transponder or tag in the buses. To interrogate the tag, a reader in the road sends out a radio signal to the transponder via an antenna. The transponder then returns a signal that carries the data that it is storing. The messages produced by this system have been integrated into the SCOOT UTC system. Measures employed to reduce excessive speeds on roads with a poor safety record.

TIRIS transponders

Traffic calming

Traffic management Traffic management is concerned with maximising the efficiency of existing transport systems. Measures utilised to fulfil this aim are varied, but generally tend to avoid reliance on new road building schemes. Measures applicable fall in to a variety of categories and these include: physical measures (e.g. traffic calming); legal or regulatory measures (e.g. bus-only lanes); technical measures (e.g. intelligent transport systems); financial measures (e.g. road- use pricing) and social measures (e.g. car sharing). Transponders Transport Area/Quadrant Approach TRANSYT Variable Message Signs (VMS) Wayfarer With-flow bus lane Acronym ALG ATC Electrical devices fitted to buses to transmit vehicle specification information to local beacons. In the context of this series of leaflets the Transport Area/Quadrant refers to bus corridors encompassing a wider service area and including improving aspects of the built environment that encourage and facilitate bus travel, such as improved walking routes to bus stops etc. TRAffic Network StudY Tool is a traffic signal analysis computer programme for traffic signal networks. Matrix displays providing drivers with mandatory and/or advisory information, at the roadside, relating to situations ahead or in the immediate vicinity. Electronic ticketing machines on buses providing operating data at a route level. Buses in this lane travel in the same direction as traffic in adjacent lanes.

Expression Association of London Government Automatic traffic counts

- 157 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

ATCO ASTRID AVL CBI CCTV CO CO2 CPT DfT DPE DPTAC DVLA ETM FPN GOL GPS JIMs

Association of Transport Coordinating Officers Automatic SCOOT TRaffic Information Database Automatic Vehicle Location Confederation of British Industry Closed Circuit Television Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Confederation of Passenger Transport UK Department for Transport Decriminalised parking enforcement Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Electronic Ticket Machine Fixed Penalty Notice Government Office for London Global Positioning Systems Joint Inspection Meetings

LBI / BusPlus London Bus Initiative LBPN LTP MOVA NO2 ODPM PCN PROMPT PTA PTE QWR (+) London Bus Priority Network Local Transport Plan Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation Nitrogen Dioxide Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Penalty Charge Notice PRiority and InfOrMatics in Public Transport Public Transport Authority Passenger Transport Executive Quality Whole Route (Plus)

- 158 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

SCOOT SPRINT SVD TfL TMO TRANSYT TRO TRL TSRGD UT(M)C VMS

Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique Selective Priority Network Technique Selective Vehicle Detection Transport for London Traffic Management Order TRaffic Network StudY Tool Traffic Regulation Order Transport Research Laboratory The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Urban Traffic (Management) Control Variable Message Signs

Contacts
Arriva plc Admiral Way Doxford International Business Park Sunderland SR3 3XP Tel: 0191 520 4000 Fax: 0191 520 4001 http://www.arriva.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Association of London Government (ALG) 59½ Southwark Street London SE1 0AL Tel: 020 7934 9999 E-mail: info@alg.gov.uk http://www.alg.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Association of Police Authorities Local Government House Smith Square

- 159 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

London SW1P 3HZ Tel: 020 7664 3168 Fax: 020 7664 3191 http://www.apa.police.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Association of Transport Coordinating Officers (ATCO) 3 Pine Way Gloucester GL4 4AE Tel: 01492 411491 http://www.atco.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Centro (West Midlands PTE) 16 Summer Lane Birmingham B19 3SD Tel: 0121 200 2787 http://www.centro.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Centre Point 103 New Oxford Street London WC1A 1DU Tel: 020 7395 8125 Fax: 020 7379 0945 http://www.cbi.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) 5th Floor, Romney House Tufton Street London SW1P 3RA

- 160 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

E-mail: cfit@dft.gsi.gov.uk http://www.cfit.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Confederation of Passenger Transport UK (CPT) Imperial House 15 - 19 Kingsway London WC2B 6UN Tel: 020 7240 3131 Fax: 020 7240 6565 E-mail: cpt@cpt-uk.org http://www.cpt-uk.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------CTC (UK national cyclist organisation) Cotterell House 69 Meadrow Godalming Surrey GU7 3HS Tel: 0870 873 0060 Fax: 0870 873 0064 E-mail: cycling@ctc.org.uk http://www.ctc.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Department for Transport (DfT) Traffic Management Division 3/19 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR Tel: 020 7944 2599 Fax: 020 7944 2211 E-mail: buspriority@dft.gsi.gov.uk http://www.dft.gov.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- 161 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) Zone 1/14 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR Tel: 020 7944 8011 Fax: 020 7944 6998 E-mail: dptac@dft.gsi.gov.uk http://www.dptac.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------First Group Plc 395 King Street Aberdeen AB24 5RP Tel: 01224 650100 Fax: 01224 650140 http://www.firstgroup.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Freight Transport Association Hermes House St John’s Road Tunbridge Wells Kent TN4 9UZ Tel: 01892 526171 Fax: 01892 534989 http://www.fta.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Go-Ahead Group plc 3rd Floor 41 - 51 Grey Street Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 6EE Tel: 0191 232 3123 Fax: 0191 221 0315 http://www.go-ahead.com

- 162 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Government Office for London (GoL) Riverwalk House 157 - 161 Millbank London SW1P 4RR Tel: 020 7217 3328 Fax: 020 7217 3450 E-mail: enquiries.gol@go-regions.gov.uk http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/?a=42496 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------GMPTE (Greater Manchester PTE) 9 Portland Street Piccadilly Gardens Manchester M60 1HX Tel: 0161 242 6000 E-mail: publicity@gmpte.gov.uk http://www.gmpte.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Highways Agency Romney House 43 Marsham Street London SW1P 3HW Tel: 08459 55 65 75 E-mail: ha_info@highways.gsi.gov.uk http://www.highways.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------London Bus Initiative (LBI / BusPlus) BusPlus Programme Customer Service Centre 4th Floor 172 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9TN

- 163 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Tel: 020 7918 4300 E-mail: enquiries@streetmanagement.org.uk http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/bp_making_your_bus_service_better.shtml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------London Transport Users Committee (LTUC) 6 Middle Street London EC1A 7JA Tel: 020 7505 9000 Fax: 020 7505 9003 http://www.ltuc.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Merseytravel (Merseyside PTE) 24 Hatton Garden Liverpool L3 2AN Tel: 0151 227 5181 Fax: 0151 236 2457 http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Metro (West Yorkshire PTE) Wellington House 40 - 50 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2DE Tel: 0113 251 7272 http://www.wymetro.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Metroline Hygeia House 66 College Road Harrow Middlesex HA1 1BE

- 164 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Tel: 020 8218 8888 Fax: 020 8218 8899 E-mail: info@metroline.co.uk http://www.metroline.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------National Federation of Bus Users PO Box 320 Portsmouth PO5 3SD Tel: 023 9281 4493 Fax: 023 9286 3080 E-mail: enquiries@nfbu.org http://www.nfbu.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE) Nexus House St. James’ Boulevard Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4AX Tel: 0191 203 3333 Fax: 0191 203 3180 http://www.nexus.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) 26 Whitehall London SW1A 2WH Tel: 020 7944 4400 http://www.odpm.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Stagecoach Group 10 Dunkeld Road Perth PH1 5TW

- 165 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Tel: 01738 442111 Fax: 01738 580407 http://www.stagecoachplc.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Strathclyde Passenger Transport Consort House 12 West George Street Glasgow G2 1HN Tel: 0141 332 6811 E-mail: webfeedback@spt.co.uk http://www.strathclyde-pte.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------SYPTE (South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive) PO Box 801 Exchange Street Sheffield South Yorkshire S2 5YT Tel: 0114 221 1333 Fax: 01226 772877 E-mail: comments@sypte.co.uk http://www.sypte.co.uk

Overview
This resource pack will provide information on the Department for Transport’s policies and guidance on measures to give buses priority to enable bus travel to be more attractive and reliable.

Foreword
"I am delighted to see the publication of this, the Second Edition of the Bus Priority Resource Pack. Government has consistently highlighted the important role that the bus plays in our towns and cities and we are firmly committed to making the bus a more attractive travel option. We have worked with the bus industry and local authorities through the Bus Partnership Forum to create the conditions for encouraging greater use of buses. Introducing measures that minimise delays and improve the reliability of bus services are a crucial part of achieving this.

- 166 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

While many successful measures have been introduced around the country, we fully recognise that planning and implementing a programme of priorities for buses is not a simple task. It is often the practical details that make the difference between the success or failure of a scheme. I therefore welcome this initiative from the Bus Partnership Forum, which provides best practice guidance, and shares the practical experience gained by local authorities, Passenger Transport Executives and bus operators around the country. I look forward to seeing more new and innovative measures, which provide real benefits to passengers, emerging as a result of it." Charlotte Atkins MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Background
The road network needs to move people and goods efficiently if we are to ensure the social and economic well being of our communities. Buses have a vital role to play in this as they can make excellent use of limited road space, carrying many more passengers than a private car for a given amount of road space. However, the potential benefit of the bus can be stifled by traffic congestion. Local authorities and bus operators need to work in partnership to make buses a more attractive alternative to the car by releasing them from the congestion delays experienced by other road users. This in turn will improve reliability and help make the bus an attractive choice for more car users as well as providing quicker journeys for both bus and other road users. Providing the right conditions for this to happen is not a simple task. This overview seeks to outline some of the ways in which local authorities can develop a successful bus strategy that will ensure that bus travel becomes a realistic alternative to the private car.

What is being done?
The Government has consistently made it clear that the bus has a crucial part to play in present and future transport policy. In the short term, buses provide the best means of increasing public transport services. Government, in partnership with local authorities and bus operators, is positively encouraging bus travel through a number of measures, including capital funding through the local transport plan process, concessionary fares schemes, the development of Quality Bus Partnerships, real time information and timetable information systems.

Why help buses?
The challenge that we face
The challenge is, of course, well known and understood. Since 1950, car ownership in the UK has grown from 2 million cars to over 22 million and use of the car has grown commensurately. The capacity of our roads has not increased at anything like this rate and this has led to severe traffic congestion, affecting the ability of buses to deliver reliable services.

- 167 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Who is affected?
Transport affects the economic and social well being of everyone. Well over 11 million bus journeys are made in Great Britain every day. Better bus services in our towns and cities contribute towards the regeneration and revitalisation of both the business community and our living areas. An efficient, reliable bus service can be an attractive alternative to those who have access to a car. Furthermore, an efficient bus service ensures social inclusion by providing access to jobs, education, health, social and leisure services to those without access to a car. A wide variety of people use buses but many people, especially older people, children, people with disabilities, women and the less well off, are often dependent upon having a reliable bus service.

What do people want?
In almost every survey about bus services, reliability is one of the most important issues for bus users. Motorists cite reliable bus services as a pre-requisite for leaving their car at home. Bus priority measures assist buses through traffic, with more consistent journey times helping deliver timetable reliability. Buses cannot take short cuts to get around congestion; they need help to get through it.

What will more bus measures deliver?
Without priority measures bus services get caught up in general traffic congestion, especially in our towns and cities during peak periods. Experience from schemes around the country shows that bus lanes may reduce bus travel times by up to 7 to 9 minutes along a 10 kilometre congested route and also improve their reliability. Reliability means buses operate in accordance with their timetables on every journey which is important to bus users. Measures to assist buses in one metropolitan city have halved the variation in journey times that operators experienced in that corridor, enabling them to operate their buses more efficiently. By introducing bus priority with other improvements, services can become more attractive to potential passengers. For example, a comprehensive quality corridor initiative in a major conurbation delivered a 75 per cent increase in bus passengers over 5 years, with 20 per cent being new customers.

What if we don’t do it?
With car ownership continuing to grow, traffic congestion will get worse. Large-scale road construction is not a sustainable option and so greater use of public transport, along with more cycling and walking, must provide our main answers. Initiatives to assist buses must be seen to be part of the traffic congestion solution, by providing more people with better and faster travel at the same time as reducing the need to travel by car.

Achieving success

- 168 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Which strategy?
It is important to recognise that there is a range of strategies available and that there is not an ’off the shelf’ solution that will maximise the benefits to buses regardless of location. The most appropriate strategy in any one area will depend upon the prevailing local conditions. In general, the reliability and journey time benefits of bus initiatives tend to follow the maxim ’the whole is more than the sum of the parts’. A range of strategies can be adopted. These can include taking a full network approach where the entire bus network is considered or a whole route strategy where delays along the length of a particular route are addressed. Alternatively, in a corridor strategy, important corridors within an area served by a number of major routes are treated. Delays can also be treated on the basis of hot spots where specific points of delay located around the area are addressed.

Who should be involved?
It is vital for local authorities and bus operators to work in partnership at all stages of the initiative, from developing the strategy, to promoting completed measures to customers and the general public. To ensure that full commitment is achieved for the implementation, a wider group of stakeholders should be involved in the development of the strategy. Experience has shown that opposition to measures can be minimised if early stakeholder involvement takes place. Stakeholders, besides the local authority and the bus operators, are likely to include the highway authority (if different); neighbouring authorities; the passenger transport executives (PTEs); the police; signal authorities; bus user organisations; residents’ organisations; cyclist groups; business and trader organisations.

Who should be informed?
As well as those stakeholders directly affected by the measures, the wider public needs to be informed of the proposals and why they are happening. Remember that, to many, the measures will be unfamiliar and misunderstood, and the benefits unclear. It may be beneficial to encourage local media to run stories on bus schemes as a general issue rather than wait until specific schemes are developed and opposition entrenched.

What will be successful?
The most successful measures have been those which have been designed to meet the circumstances of a particular route or corridor. It is crucial that these measures are developed as part of an overall road management strategy to improve bus services in the local area. An important part of a strategy is the efficient management and coordination of traffic schemes, maintenance and other roads works. When these measures are complimented by enforcement and bus friendly traffic management, delays to all traffic, including buses, can be significantly minimised. Under new powers local authorities can enforce bus lanes using CCTV cameras in order to maintain the benefits to bus services. Enforcement can also target offences such as abandoned or untaxed vehicles.

- 169 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

How do we convince people of the benefits?
Early stakeholder involvement and well targeted information about the proposals is vital. Of at least equal importance is the determination of councillors and senior officers to see the measures succeed. It can be daunting to attempt to progress schemes when there is the presumption that there will be opposition to them. There are, however, numerous examples of successful implementation. Many have achieved their aims in full and still more have shown that disbenefits predicted by objectors have not occurred. The resource pack that accompanies this overview tells you how this has been done.

Securing the benefits
Selecting appropriate measures
Bus schemes are often part of a comprehensive treatment of a road corridor with enhanced facilities for all types of travel. The most successful measures tend to feature an iterative design process that continues throughout the planning and implementation phase. In designing the most appropriate measure it is advisable to consider the whole process, for example to: establish the form of strategy to be adopted; identify problem areas consistent with that strategy; agree with stakeholders the nature of the problem; discuss possible solutions to specific problems; investigate the preferred solutions and compare benefits; assure benefits are achieved for bus users; monitor the measure before and after it is carried out; and make adjustments to measures if they would improve the benefits.

Enforcement and maintenance
It is essential to maintain the benefits of bus measures and to do this requires a positive approach to enforcement and highway maintenance. Basic design and maintenance procedures include ensuring that bus priority measures are clearly seen and well maintained, and that the effects on buses are considered when highways are maintained. Active enforcement should aim for total compliance; even if it leads to direct costs being incurred with no revenue stream. Specific actions to consider can include: decriminalisation of parking enforcement to give control to local authorities; and camera enforcement or roving wardens/attendants.

More information
Resource pack
The resource pack provides decision makers with advice and guidance on how to make bus initiatives successful. It consists of a series of leaflets which provide evidence of successful implementation, and advice on how to promote and manage the process. This illustrates the benefits achieved through a whole range of experiences countrywide.

- 170 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Web site
A web site dedicated to bus measures (http://www.dft.gov.uk/decmigration/localtrans/busprioritythewayahead/) contains all the information in the resource pack.

Presentational CD ROM
Attached to this resource pack is a CD ROM that contains a range of presentational information. This information can be used to tailor presentations on bus initiatives to a range of audiences and can be customised to suit each user.

Contacts
To get a free copy of the resource pack and overview, contact: DfT Free Literature, PO Box 236, WETHERBY, LS23 7NB. Tel: 0870 122 6236 Fax: 0870 122 6237 Please quote the following reference: 03DFT005 The resource pack and overview can also be obtained through the web site: http://www.dft.gov.uk/decmigration/localtrans/busprioritythewayahead/. All of the leaflets, along with other information on bus priority, can be accessed and downloaded, free of charge, from the bus priority web site. To find out more about bus priority measures, contact: Department for Transport, Traffic Management Division, 3/19 Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR. Tel: 0207 944 2599 Fax: 0207 944 2211 Email: buspriority@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Strategic options
Establishing the vision
Legislation requires local authorities to prepare a bus strategy that sets out the vision for bus services in their area and details the general policies to meet this vision. Local authorities are also given the powers to enter into quality partnerships with operators and establish quality contracts if these are felt to be appropriate to delivering the vision. The overarching bus strategy describes the scope of the bus services and the role of the local authorities in providing them. The bus priority strategy needs to show how services can be improved.

Prevailing conditions
The first step is to review bus services based on a number of basic parameters, which will involve the identification of the range of problems and opportunities including:

- 171 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

specific locations of delays; heavily-used corridors; and high frequency/high patronage routes.

Choosing the most appropriate measure
The various measures for achieving bus priority are outlined in the case study leaflets contained within this resource pack. The most appropriate solution in any one area will depend upon the: prevailing conditions in the area; and objectives of the strategy. However, in all cases the appropriate solution must be part of an effective traffic management regime.

Strategic options
Once a local authority has collated the basic information, it can then consider which of the various strategic approaches it will take. Examples of these approaches are given below.

Hot spots
The hot spot strategy involves reviewing the bus network and identifying where the major delays are. These delays can be caused by a number of factors, such as: congestion; inappropriate parking; servicing activity; outdated signals; or poor interchange and boarding facilities. It is advisable to mark the delay hot spots on a plan, as this can help in prioritising the measures needed to treat them. Prioritising can be based on factors such as the number of routes affected, total delays incurred, patronage levels and/or interchange arrangements. The main advantage of the hot spot approach is that the places where there are real difficulties are tackled in a rational and programmed way. Very often a single bus priority measure will benefit a number of routes. For example, bus priority at traffic signals can help several routes. This is an effective way of targeting funds to greatest effect across the whole bus network. The disadvantage of dealing with only one location at a time on any particular route is that any benefits gained there could easily be lost along other sections of the route and overall journey times might not decrease. It could also spread funds too thinly across the whole bus network.

- 172 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus corridors
An alternative to the hot spots approach is to promote integrated solutions for particular lengths of the bus network in a coordinated way. This typically means looking at heavily used bus corridors, often connecting major town centres. This strategy aims to coordinate individual schemes into a managed route, often improving interchanges, passenger information, waiting facilities and even ticketing at the same time. The corridor approach has worked well in several parts of the country. It has been used to integrate bus lanes with enforcement and urban traffic control (UTC) improvements. This has been achieved by, for example, using selective vehicle detection (SVD) and traffic management software such as SCOOT, PROMPT, MOVA and SPRINT among many others. In some areas, local authorities are considering dedicated maintenance regimes along these corridors, so that the benefits of bus priority last as long as possible. For example, the Greater Manchester quality bus corridor programme aims to complete work on 19 corridors by 2006, and has involved over 20 key stakeholders. Many operators recognise the benefits of the corridor approach. Some have invested in corridor studies, such as that provided by GO (North East) on the A690 Durham Road to Sunderland corridor. The corridor strategy is sometimes upgraded to cover a ’transport area’ or a ’transport quadrant’. This encompasses the wider corridor catchment area and includes measures such as improved walking routes to bus stops and wider traffic calming measures on surrounding roads. The main advantage of this strategy is that it addresses problems where the need is greatest, to the benefit of several bus routes using the same corridor. The main disadvantage, however, is that this strategy does not necessarily encourage new bus users in more diverse areas. Also, delays can still happen off the main corridor, reducing the effectiveness of the scheme.

Whole route
This approach applies the corridor strategy to a whole bus route from start to finish. The whole route approach inevitably overlaps with other bus routes, so spreading the benefits. Again, local authorities can use a transport area approach as part of a whole route strategy. The main advantage of the whole route approach is that the benefits it brings can be controlled and therefore maintained. Journey times, reliability and route management are more easily dealt with. The Superoute proposals in Tyne and Wear link several urban areas and improve approximately 20 routes. In the capital, the London Bus Initiative (now known as BusPlus) has been developed on over 70 routes in two main branches. Whole route strategies are best suited to larger urban areas where routes are more likely to overlap. The main disadvantage of the whole route approach is that it concentrates funding on a single route, benefiting other routes only where it overlaps with them.

- 173 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Park and ride
The park and ride strategy is especially focussed on getting people to change to catching the bus instead of using their cars. However, the strategy relies heavily on there being enough space on the edge of town centres to provide adequate parking facilities. Effective park and ride schemes need a high level of bus priority on the transfer route. Potential passengers must be able to see a clear benefit over the private car. The key attraction for motorists is likely to be a faster journey time, so bus priority measures such as reallocating road space will be needed to increase the benefit of park and ride buses over the private car.

Consultation
A strategic approach to consultation is essential if bus priority is to succeed. It is quite easy to introduce bus priority where congestion is not severe and parking is not limited. Local authorities need to consider carefully whether it is worth introducing bus priority measures in that sort of location. Bus priority is most useful where congestion and parking are problems. However, these are the areas that tend to generate the most vocal opposition. Local authorities need to predict where opposition is likely to occur and be ready to explain what they are proposing to do and why. That is why there must be a clear consultation strategy. The consultation must allow all parties to identify and understand the key issues and prepare to work around any problems. This is more likely to happen if all stakeholders are involved in the discussions to solve whatever problems arise. Key stakeholders must feel that they have ’ownership’ of bus priority measures.

Implementation & delivery
Background
Most local authorities have produced comprehensive bus strategies as part of their local transport plans (LTPs). These strategies are usually endorsed by everyone with an interest in sustainable travel and set out ambitious objectives for developing bus travel as a viable alternative to the car. However, very often the devil is in the detail. When local authorities try to turn their strategic vision into a practical programme, problems can appear. The difficulties may vary, but they are generally reduced to: meeting the political challenge; getting bus operators actively involved; and implementing and evaluating the scheme.

The political challenge
Few people disagree with the vision of a transport system that is more accessible while cutting congestion and pollution. The political challenge is to develop actual transport schemes that clearly deliver those benefits. The skill needed then is the ability to persuade people that they would benefit from schemes which limit car use, even if they consider themselves to depend on their cars.

- 174 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Council officers can provide many of the answers. But it is the local councillor who has to face constituents and give assurances on what could be controversial plans. What arguments can they use, and how can they be persuaded themselves that bus policies are worth selling to their constituents? This resource pack is intended to help councillors and council officers tackle these issues. In particular, it aims to draw on good practice in bus priority across the country and pass on information about the benefits of successful schemes. The resource pack contains facts about public transport to help users make the case for bus priority. Some of these facts are also included in Frequently asked questions or FAQs (section 9). Given that typically around one third of the electorate does not have access to a car, it is worth emphasising the importance of bus users to the local economy. Buses allow people without access to a car to get to work, to the shops, or to leisure activities. It may be worth raising awareness of the needs of the less well-off. Information about travel choices and proof of the benefits of bus priority may also help, as can effective marketing and positive reporting of successful schemes. Effective and inclusive consultation is critical, both to gather and disseminate information. Consultation helps to produce better bus schemes and makes the decision-making process more ’transparent’, but it cannot be a substitute for that process. Local authorities should involve councillors and stakeholders as early as possible. Ideally, consultation should include bus operators and users, and people with concerns about bus-related measures at a particular site. It is important to begin with a re-statement of the strategic objectives when each proposal is put forward. Also, early discussion of areas that are causing concern has been proven to help create a sense of ’ownership’ across the community and makes scheme implementation easier.

Operator involvement
It is important to recognise bus operators’ vital contribution to the aims of encouraging people to use buses and increasing social inclusion. Bus operators bring a unique perspective. They deal directly with bus passengers and can provide useful information, including bus usage and other non-commercially sensitive data. Operators need to be involved from the start in the design of effective measures to help buses. There are many instances around the country of local authorities and bus operators working together towards a shared vision for public transport. And yet there are also examples of local authorities introducing bus priority measures, only for the operator to withdraw the service that the priority measures benefited shortly afterwards. Some local authorities have altered traffic management arrangements without telling local bus operators, who then found that their routes became much more congested, or in some cases even severed. It is not uncommon for developers to propose large housing projects with a road layout that is incapable of accommodating buses, even when car parking spaces are deliberately limited. Similarly, it has been known for local authorities not to consult bus operators on proposals to protect residential roads from ’rat running’ traffic, proposals which can displace traffic onto bus routes.

- 175 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

None of these circumstances benefit buses, but unfortunately they are not unusual. They are often the result of poor communications between local authorities and bus operators. Most authorities have a public transport liaison committee, or similar entity. But for it to be meaningful, all parties need to be open and honest about their intentions. Effective partnership working requires real operator involvement. This can include regular meetings at different organisational levels, commissioning joint bus priority studies, and implementing joint marketing strategies. But essentially it is about ensuring that buses become an important factor in planning and managing local authority infrastructure. Bus provision should be a priority when local authorities plan briefs for development or consider traffic management schemes. In turn, operators must see themselves as part of the local community and get involved in partnership working. They can explain and raise awareness of the role of buses through: local strategic partnerships; economic partnerships; business forums; chambers of commerce; and resident and community associations.

Implementation and evaluation process
As a local authority develops a bus priority scheme, it needs to set up a process for getting the maximum benefit for buses. All stakeholders should be involved in identifying problem areas and delay hot spots. A number of authorities have introduced joint inspection meetings (JIMs). At these, representatives of the bus operator, the local authority, the police and any other involved group travel along a bus corridor looking for trouble spots that might affect buses. These locations can then be developed in line with the consultation process. Once a scheme is in place, it must be evaluated. This is so it can be modified if necessary, and so that the local authority can learn lessons for future schemes. Operators are often reluctant to release commercially sensitive data on passenger volumes, so local authorities need to reassure them that they will maintain their confidentiality. But more fundamentally, the operator and the authority need to acknowledge the value of monitoring and evaluation in helping to design better schemes in the future. There is more advice in Performance indicators & monitoring (section 7).

Maintaining the benefits
Route management
Background
The most important aspect of bus priority is that buses are able to use effectively the measures introduced on bus routes. This may seem self evident, but bus operators constantly face the problem of bus priority measures that they cannot physically use. They are prevented from getting the full benefit from them by:

- 176 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

illegal parking; traffic queues; unnotified roadworks; and defective road surfaces. Bus priority measures are designed and introduced to help achieve easier and more consistent journey times through congested areas in our towns and cities. This is important to bus passengers, bus operators, other road users and the local community alike. Better reliability is a currently a legal requirement for bus operators enforced by Traffic Commissioners in respect of all local bus services. This legal requirement is that 95 per cent of journeys on a registered service should operate not more than one minute early or five minutes late compared with timings given in registration documents. Better reliability is also a priority for bus users and an important factor in attracting new passengers. Motorists are more likely to transfer to reliable bus services and, the greater the transfer, the less the congestion (and pollution) in urban areas. It is therefore important to maintain bus priority facilities and keep them free from physical obstructions. Buses are especially prone to obstructions, e.g. congestion or roadworks, because they are legally required to stay on route. Maintenance and clearance of the route have a high priority on the rail network and motorways, but sometimes seem to have a lower priority on local roads. There are three main activities on the public highway that can significantly affect the operation of bus routes: enforcement; roadworks; and traffic management. Traffic management issues are addressed separately in the following leaflet entitled Traffic management.

Enforcement
Enforcement is critical to the effectiveness of bus priority measures. For example, bus lanes help protect buses from the worst traffic congestion, helping to make them more reliable and attractive. However, illegal parking or driving in bus lanes can seriously undermine their benefits. That is why they need protecting through enforcement. The problem is that the powers to enforce traffic orders (which make measures such as bus lanes possible) vary throughout the country, so approaches to enforcement are equally varied. Most enforcement is associated with moving vehicles. Moving vehicle offences are usually defined as criminal activities and only the police can enforce them. This is also true of parking offences in areas where decriminalised parking has not been introduced. Police resources are always under pressure, and bus lane enforcement has therefore been infrequent and sporadic.

- 177 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

London’s experience
London was the first area allowed to introduce decriminalised parking and bus lane enforcement. As a result of new powers under the Local Authority Act 1996 (amended in 2000), London boroughs were allowed to enforce parking and bus lanes using parking attendants and cameras. The Act made the offence of driving in a bus lane a civil rather than a criminal offence. This meant that highway authorities (in this case the London boroughs) could issue a penalty charge notice (PCN) to offenders. The penalty charge was set at £80, and recently increased to £100. In 1999, the Association of London Government (ALG) set up a trial of the new powers with the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Ealing, Newham, Croydon and the Corporation of London. The boroughs used close circuit television (CCTV) cameras operated remotely from secure control centres to monitor selected bus lanes. The Act requires that any offences caught on CCTV should be recorded on a secure format and watched by an operator. It is important to take account of the context of any offence. For example, a driver would not be penalised for entering a bus lane in order to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle. The aim was to make the trial self-funding through the issue of PCNs. The process for issuing a PCN is as follows: the CCTV operator reviews all recorded offences after the bus lane ceases operating for the day; the CCTV operator and a supervisor check each case to make sure an offence has occurred; the CCTV operator obtains registered keeper and vehicle details of each offender from DVLA; the CCTV operator checks the vehicle description against the CCTV image; a PCN should reach the registered keeper within 14 days of the offence; and the Transport Committee for London’s Parking Appeal Service deals with any appeals. The results of the trial were dramatic. Following an initial publicity campaign when enforcement started, the number of PCNs declined significantly, by up to 80 per cent in some areas. Buses were able to travel faster in bus lanes in the trial areas. But there was a limited effect on their overall reliability because the trial areas were small and buses were affected by other factors such as traffic congestion and roadworks. As Transport for London (TfL) sees enforcement as such an integral part of bus priority in London, it has agreed enforcement strategies with each London borough. Under these agreements, the boroughs provide additional parking attendants or cameras along London Bus Initiative (LBI) or BusPlus routes. These bus routes have been subject to ’whole route’ improvements and further details are provided in the LBI leaflet in this resource pack. TfL underwrites all extra costs that cannot be met under PCN income. This gives the boroughs an incentive to achieve full compliance.

South Yorkshire’s experience
Bus operators First and Yorkshire Terrier set up an enforcement trial in Sheffield with South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE). They paid for extra police motorcycle patrols during peak periods and motorists were warned through a media campaign that driving in a bus lane would result in a fixed penalty notice (FPN). The trial ran from April to June 2001.

- 178 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The trial opened with very high levels of FPNs issued: a significantly greater number than for the same period in the previous year. There was clearly a high level of non compliance with motorists perceiving little chance of being caught. However, a very significant reduction took place over the trial period, with 82 per cent fewer tickets issued in June than in April. Importantly, one operator reported that lost mileage fell by 60 per cent overall, with the other reporting a drop of 45 per cent. Lost mileage is defined as scheduled miles minus operating miles. The latter is affected by traffic lost miles (e.g. congestion delays) and operating lost miles (e.g. driver shortage and vehicle breakdown). Both operators also found that they kept to scheduled journey times better and more consistently. The conclusions drawn from the trial were: effective enforcement is essential to bus priority; the initial level of FPNs more than paid for the cost of additional policing, so in theory the trial would have been self-funding. However, as more motorists comply with bus lanes, the rule of diminishing returns applies; enforcement was essential during peak hours, but more enforcement was needed at other times of the day to maintain standards; and enforcement was perceived as fair to all road users. South Yorkshire’s experience has been compiled with the assistance of SYPTE and BOSSY (Bus Operators Serving South Yorkshire). The Local Authority Act 2003 is currently being debated in Parliament and will extend the powers used in London across the whole country. The Department for Transport (DfT) is keen to standardise enforcement following the lessons learnt in London, and has been taking advice from both TfL and the ALG. However, DfT intends to grant individual approval to local authorities that have developed their own parking enforcement regimes and to those that can show they have the correct systems already in place. There is significant interest from metropolitan authorities and highways authorities for large towns and cities in introducing bus lane enforcement in a similar way to London.

Highways works
A common problem appears to be a lack of coordination between highways managers, who are responsible for maintaining the highway, and transport managers, who oversee the running of bus services. Highways managers sometimes schedule maintenance work without informing bus operators, resulting in buses being diverted or even suspended. The same can happen when, for example, gas, water or electricity companies carry out work on the roads, often as an emergency. Highways managers should consult bus operators on the phasing of maintenance works to minimise their effect on services. At worst, some highways managers have created diversion routes that buses cannot use. It has been suggested that highways managers should set up temporary bus priority measures, where reasonable, when roadworks take place so that buses are not delayed.

- 179 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Local authorities must also replace bus priority signing and marking as soon as possible after roadworks take place. It is good practice to monitor and maintain the condition of signing and lining for bus priority measures. If signs are missing or damaged, or lines are indistinct, the opportunity for enforcement is severely reduced. Most authorities produce a Maintenance Plan which sets out relative priorities based on route hierarchy and severity of problem. The importance of bus lane maintenance should be formally recognised in these Maintenance Plans. Some authorities have highway liaison groups, which involve all stakeholders in the process of highway maintenance. These authorities often have fewer operational problems for both public transport and highway maintenance. However, these liaison groups vary significantly between authorities and may be irregular and infrequent. Again, good practice demands regular liaison meetings involving the appropriate level of staff and with a clear agenda.

Traffic management
Background
The previous leaflet, Route management, considers the effective management and operation of bus routes on a daily basis. This leaflet takes a more long-term, forward planning perspective and considers the relationship between traffic management and bus priority. It is important to think broadly about the relationships between traffic management and bus priority. Traffic management should be carried out in a way which complements a local authority’s wider planning and transport policy objectives, including the delivery of the council’s integrated transport strategy and bus strategy. Such strategies set out high-level policy objectives and targets for modal priorities (with priority given to public transport, walking and cycling); the allocation of road space (through the creation of new road space or the reallocation of existing road space); and demand management initiatives. For example, bus priority measures can be both the ’carrot’ and ’stick’, making a contribution to the better management of congestion and helping towards the provision of faster and more reliable bus services. Fundamentally, in taking decisions about the effective management of traffic in their area, local authorities should consider the needs of all road users, including buses and their passengers. In doing so, local authorities and bus operators should liaise closely, with traffic management issues being high up on the agenda. Effective traffic management underpins bus priority: without this foundation the full benefits of any bus priority measure cannot be realised. Furthermore, good traffic management can assist buses without impeding the general flow of traffic in the area.

Traffic management & buses
For these reasons traffic management, bus operations and bus priority measures need to be considered together, not in isolation.

- 180 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Local authorities should ensure that, as far as is practical, the introduction of traffic management measures does not impede the effectiveness and reliability of local bus services. For example, when local authorities introduce traffic management measures in residential areas to improve road safety and the local environment, they need to consider the implications for bus operations in that area and on nearby bus routes. Traffic management solutions developed without consideration of bus routes have the potential to harm local bus operations. Using road humps for example as a traffic calming measure is an inappropriate solution if the road in question has a bus service operating on it. More ’bus friendly’ traffic calming measures such as chicanes should be considered instead. Furthermore, as well as affecting bus operations in the area being ’calmed’, measures to prevent ’rat running’ on residential streets, for example, can displace traffic back onto nearby bus routes. The impact of such measures on bus routes should be considered, and wherever possible bus priority measures should be introduced to minimise the disruption to bus services. In all circumstances, close liaison with local bus service operators, as well as residents, etc., is essential. In areas where bus services run infrequently and the case for bus priority may be relatively weak, the introduction of well designed traffic management measures can improve the general flow of traffic, which can benefit buses too. This approach may best suit semi-rural areas and small to medium-sized towns, where there is often simply not enough available road space to introduce certain types of bus priority. Improving bus journey times and service reliability for buses through the introduction of good traffic management should be a main aim of a local authority. Relatively simple measures that assist buses more generally such as dispensing with bus laybys, other than at places where the service terminates, and the use of yellow box markings to help buses at key junctions should be considered as part of this. It is of course important to be aware of the risk that improvements in general traffic flow and reduced car journey times could increase the attractiveness of car use and then any benefit to buses could be lost.

On-street waiting & loading
Where local authorities are considering more radical, innovative approaches to the regulation and management of on-street waiting and loading restrictions on key bus routes, consultations need to be held. Key stakeholders that need to be consulted include local traders, delivery and distribution companies, the local chamber of commerce, as well as bus operators. Deliveries in peak hours can raise issues that affect bus routes. Innovative waiting and loading schemes to deal with these issues need positive and effective enforcement. This benefits all road users, including buses. Similarly it is very important for local authorities to liaise closely with bus operators during the design, consultation and implementation of area-wide controlled parking zone (CPZ) schemes. The access requirements of buses operating within areas for which on-street parking controls are being developed need to be carefully considered. In this context, it is important to recognise the potential obstruction that can be caused by ’Blue Badge’ parking, taking advantage of the lesser restrictions afforded by loading restrictions, irrespective of single or double yellow line parking restrictions.

- 181 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Special initiatives
Edinburgh Greenways
Description of need
Background ’Greenways’ are bus priority lanes, introduced as part of Edinburgh’s transport strategy, Moving Forward. A Traffic Regulation Order bans general traffic from Greenways, restricting access to buses, taxis and cycles. Greenways differ from conventional bus priority in a number of ways: ⢠lanes are surfaced in green tarmac; ⢠red lines prohibit stopping, replacing traditional yellow lines; ⢠a dedicated team of wardens strictly enforces Greenways; ⢠side streets off Greenways have traffic calming measures; ⢠there is better provision for cyclists and pedestrians; ⢠Greenways operate throughout the working day; and ⢠there are better bus shelters with comprehensive bus information. Problems Greenways are an attempt to remedy a problem with traditional bus lanes. Although many were very successful, buses still suffered congestion at a number of junctions that lacked yellow lines to prevent on-street parking activity. Objectives The Greenways scheme aimed to: ⢠improve bus reliability; ⢠reduce bus journey times; ⢠reduce car traffic growth by the year 2000; ⢠reduce car traffic by 30 per cent by the year 2010; and ⢠meet European guidelines on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations in the air by 2000.

- 182 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Scheme details
Description This study looks at two Greenways corridors. The A8 is 6.7km long and 55 per cent of its length is inbound bus lane, whilst 54 per cent is outbound bus lane. The A900 is 2.2km long and 23 per cent of its length is inbound bus lane, whilst 41 per cent is outbound bus lane. These two Greenways are compared with the A7/A701 corridor, which has conventional bus only lanes on both sides for most its 3km length. Implementation date The two Greenways in the study were introduced in 1999. Costs The scheme cost approximately £500,000/km. This compares with £110,000/km for the traditional bus lane corridor. Consultation The local authority consulted with bus operators, residents and businesses in the core scheme area. Public consultation following experimental introduction of Greenways in 1999 showed strong support. Bus operators Lothian Region Transport and First Edinburgh operate buses along the two Greenways. Bus frequency The bus services run every 12 minutes.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme

Before and after monitoring
Dates of surveys The surveys were carried out in 1999. Types of surveys Types of surveys Results

- 183 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Traffic flows 3 Journey times The surveys showed that, in most cases, both Greenways and conventional lanes protected buses from the congestion that affected other traffic. Greenways that were lined with shops provided better protection from congestion than the equivalent stretch of conventional bus lane. The introduction of Greenways on the A8 corridor seems to have improved bus reliability. The conventional corridor did not show any obvious changes over the same period. Patronage Surveys showed that there was an increase in bus use, with approximately 11 per cent of the sample claiming to use the bus more. However, 7 per cent of interviewees claimed to use the bus less. Hence overall there was a 4 per cent increase in bus use. Other effects of the scheme The count data for both Greenways corridors shows that traffic volumes have decreased slightly. It is not possible to attribute any change in cycle use to Greenways from the data available. Enforcement issues Greenways are constantly patrolled but conventional lanes merely receive ’visits’ and these generally after 08.00. An illegal parker is typically 15 times more likely to encounter a warden on a Greenway than on a conventional bus lane. Possible scheme amendments Greenways design could be improved by avoiding: bus lanes which are carried straight through junctions without any setback; starting bus lanes immediately downstream of junctions as this can result in traffic being unwilling to use the inside lane, which also reduces capacity; and unnecessarily reducing the queuing space available and thus increasing the frequency with which queues block back to upstream junctions, causing more frequent congestion there. This is particularly important at the start of the Greenway where upstream buses have no priority and therefore get caught in the congestion.

Conclusions
The Edinburgh Greenways scheme is successful and has been extended.

- 184 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

References
Scottish Executive CRU, A Comparative Evaluation of Greenways and Conventional Bus Lanes, Report number 83. Obtainable from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfind.aspx?series=9

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the help of the Scottish Executive CRU, City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian Region Transport, and First Edinburgh. For further information contact the City of Edinburgh Council City Development Department on: 0131 469 3630.

Other examples
With regard to other similar bus priority measures recently introduced, there are none directly comparable that have all of the features of Greenways, particularly in terms of the level of enforcement and the use of red lines. However, the London Bus Initiative (now known as Bus Plus) also features high levels of enforcement, albeit under a different legislative regime.

Further information
Guidance and further information can be found in the following: DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. Seaman, D & Heggie N, Comparative evaluation of Greenways and bus priority lanes, Traffic Management, Safety and Intelligent Transport Systems. Proceedings of Seminar D at the AET European Transport Conference 1999, Vol. P432 0115-32.

London Bus Initiative
Description of need
Background The London Bus Initiative Phase 1 (LBI1) was a 3 year fixed term initiative established in April 2000 and supported with a £60m grant from Government, as a new partnership approach to improving bus services in the Capital. The partnership drew together the London Bus Priority Network (LBPN) Partnership of all 33 individual London local authorities, Transport for London’s (TfL) Bus Priority Team and London Buses, bus operators and enforcement agencies. This collaborative feature was a strong element of the initiative, which received a Merit commendation from the Institution of Civil Engineers in 2003. The vision for the initiative was "to deliver a step change enhancement of the actual and perceived quality of London’s bus service" with the aim of making travel by bus more attractive and getting more people to use buses.

- 185 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Challenges 27 high frequency bus routes across London were selected for treatment with the specific aim of benefiting the maximum numbers of passengers. Collectively they were identified as Bus Plus routes. The routes served areas where integrated transport services could be provided and where buses offered a competitive alternative to the car. Some routes included heavily congested roads or passed through areas where improved bus transport could assist in regeneration. The LBI Partnership took 12 months to set up, plan and programme the project and a further two years to design, consult and implement. Objectives The LBI had four objectives: ⢠to promote a change in travel habits and get more people onto London’s buses; to deliver improvements on a ’whole route’ basis; to make buses more attractive for potential users; and to make buses the first choice of mode on LBI routes. Constituent parts to the Whole Route approach Constituent parts to the Whole Route approach A key feature of the LBI was the whole journey approach to route improvements comprising ten main elements of a whole route implementation plan. The diagram below shows the constituent parts to the Whole Route approach to route improvement.

Scheme details
Description 27 Bus Routes were selected for LBI Phase 1 and divided into three categories: 3 Quality Whole Routes +; 5 Quality Whole Routes; and 19 Whole Routes. A wide range of measures were introduced across the whole of London with the QWR+ routes receiving the highest levels of bus priority. Over 100 extra bus lanes, 50 new pedestrian crossings, 300 signalised junctions equipped with bus priority and 140 junction improvements were introduced on the 27 routes. The measures had a typical expected first year rate of return (FYRR) of 20 per cent. Over 400km of roads were studied and received bus priority measures. These measures benefited all the Bus Plus routes together with other bus services using these corridors. Improved enforcement was delivered through the installation of bus lane enforcement cameras, both on board the bus and at the roadside (CCTV) as well as the enhancement of borough enforcement programmes. Improved passenger information was provided at bus stops, together with real time passenger information and new bus interior cleaning programmes. For drivers, a BTEC qualification was initiated and up to March 2003, 1,500 drivers had completed this qualification.

- 186 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Implementation The Whole Route Implementation Plans (WRIPs) began in April 2000 with scheme implementation beginning in late 2000 and continuing until the end of March 2003. Costs Enforcement £11m Traffic engineering £28m Bus operations £3.5m Programme support £9m Major projects £8.5m + The total cost of the scheme was approximately £60m. Consultation Consultation was both broad and detailed, including individual schemes. Extensive use was made of the technical press, local radio and newspapers to disseminate information. A computerised simulation illustrating the LBI toolkit was produced on CD to aid consultation. As with many traffic related projects, a number of schemes attracted opposition and some schemes had to be amended or dropped from the programme. Bus operators Transport for London - London Buses, is the public transport provider for London and all bus services are tendered. Major bus operators include the First Group, Arriva and London United.

Before and after monitoring
The three QWR+ routes were studied in detail with comprehensive before and after monitoring undertaken. The graphs below showing the Route 115 compare bus and car journey times before and after the introduction of the LBI measures together with a do-nothing scenario, which assumes a 2 per cent decrease in traffic speeds over the three years. The reliability of the bus route has improved over the three years. The excess waiting times for passengers using the 115 has decreased by over 30 per cent following the introduction of the LBI and service enhancements. The bus and car journey time variability has also considerably improved. The bus priority and complimentary traffic engineering measures have delivered improved reliability and reduced journey times, by an average of 3 per cent throughout the day.

- 187 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Journey times Journey times were reduced on the QWR+ Route 115, but on the two remaining QWR+ routes, the 149 and 185, the 149 journey times increased, and on the 185, there was little change. These changes must be viewed against a general deterioration in operating conditions on these routes and journey speeds would have been much slower had the LBI improvements not been installed. Also a number of pedestrian facilities were introduced and bus stop dwell times increased as additional bus passengers were attracted to the route. R115 bus journey and car journey times Patronage Annual patronage on the 27 Bus Plus LBI routes rose from 165 million annually to 201 million over the life of the project, an increase of 21.9 per cent. This compares with a network wide increase including LBI routes of 18.8 per cent. Potential project enhancements Much was achieved through the LBI and the role and importance of bus services and bus priority measures was raised significantly. However, some factors were not fully anticipated as follows: the wide partnership approach was innovative and was a highly successful basis for building on co-operation. Establishing the partnership was made more difficult as it coincided with TfL’s formation in 2000; the whole route approach to improvements demanded intensive resources dedicated to traffic signal design. Skilled and experienced traffic signal engineers were in high demand and the frequency of maintaining and updating traffic signal junctions requires increased resources. This issue is now is being addressed by TfL through specialist training programmes; and schemes were identified through the Whole Route Implementation Plan (WRIP) process on the basis of need. However, not all schemes were subject to detailed design evaluation. Explicit justification may have helped prioritisation of schemes and better responses to local opposition, although this may have delayed the implementation of some schemes.

Conclusions
The LBI Phase 1 was highly successful and objectives were largely met. Passenger growth on the LBI routes is now at its greatest for over 50 years and TfL is currently investing approximately £50m per annum in bus priority measures across London.

References
DETR, A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone, The Stationery Office, 1998. DETR, From Workhorse to Thoroughbred. A Better Role for Bus Travel, 1999.

- 188 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Greater London Authority, The Mayor’s Transport Strategy, GLA, July 2001.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet is based on documentation provided by Transport for London.

Other examples
There is no direct equivalent of the LBI owing to the unique statutory arrangements prevailing in the Capital. The West Midlands Bus Showcase and Edinburgh Greenways leaflets in this resource pack provide examples of other comprehensive initiatives outside of London.

Further information
Contact the TfL Bus Priority team on: 020 7027 9408 or email: enquiries@streetmanagement.org.uk Alternatively you can write to: Bus Priority Programme Customer Service Centre 4th Floor 172 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9TN Further information can also be obtained from the web site: http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk

West Midlands Showcase
Description of need
Background The Centro (West Midlands PTE) Twenty Year Public Transport Strategy set out objectives for the delivery of high quality public transport services and facilities across the West Midlands. The West Midlands Bus Strategy and Public Transport Strategy combined to provide a framework for development of an integrated transport system that will continue to be dominated by the bus. The West Midlands Area Multi-Modal Study (WMAMMS, 2001) placed strong emphasis on investment in bus priority to raise the share of peak travel by bus from 20 per cent in 1999 to more than 30 per cent by 2031. Problems Severe peak period traffic congestion is experienced in many parts of the West Midlands. Traffic flows are higher than in any area outside London and there is high growth in traffic and car ownership. It is estimated that congestion costs businesses in the West Midlands £2.5 billion each year.

- 189 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Objectives The West Midlands Bus Showcase concept was developed to deliver a radical improvement to bus services to make them attractive to new users, particularly to motorists, and to retain existing passengers. The objectives of Bus Showcase are: to be more attractive to bus users and potential new users; to improve peak period bus speeds relative to the private car; to improve bus reliability; to reduce bus journey times; and to increase bus patronage. Concept The aim is to develop a Bus Showcase network on strategic routes where demand for bus travel is heavy and there is potential for growth in patronage. The high frequency of service on Showcase routes ensures that passengers can ’turn up and go’ without the need to seek timetable information before travelling. The Bus Showcase network complements local rail and Midland Metro through improved interchange opportunities. Investment in priority and route infrastructure on strategic corridors is complemented by improvements to shelters, information, accessibility and safety in other areas served by Showcase routes. A recent development is the ’core and spurs’ approach. Core corridors have the ’turn up and go’ level of service and the full range of Showcase investment. Spurs are sections of route with a lower frequency of service feeding into main corridors where investment is limited to access, accessibility, waiting environment and information.

The schemes
Key principles The Showcase concept is based on three key principles: Achieving a ’seamless’ journey by addressing the whole journey from home to final destination, including walk stages of the journey and providing passenger information. Effective partnership between highway authorities, Centro, bus operators and police. Comprehensive consultation. Standard features Every completed Showcase corridor will include: accessible and safe pedestrian routes to/from bus stops; low floor buses serving bus stops with accessible kerbing; an attractive waiting environment at bus stops with high quality shelters provided where possible; frequent bus services allowing passengers to ’turn up and go’; bus priority, selective bus detection and other highway measures to improve bus speed and reliability

- 190 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

where practical to do so; capability to provide real time information for bus passengers and automatic vehicle location for service management by operators; commitment to service quality including frequent cleaning of buses and customer care training for drivers; and comprehensive enforcement of highway measures. Standards A series of performance standards has been identified for Showcase routes. Some examples are given below: Network access: 100 per cent of built-up areas within 400 metres of a bus stop. Accessibility: 100 per cent stops with easy access kerbs, 100 per cent of buses with low floor. Peak frequency: Maximum interval of six minutes between buses from 07.00 to 20.00. Reliability: Compliance with standards set by the Traffic Commissioner. Journey times: All journey times to be the same as off-peak. Journey speed: A long term target of 95 per cent of car journey speeds in peak periods.

Delivery
Partnership A protocol was agreed in advance of implementation of Line 33, the first Showcase route in the West Midlands. More recent Showcase routes have been implemented on the basis of informal agreements. Consultation is taking place on a statutory Quality Bus Partnership for the Route 67 Corridor (Lichfield Road/Tyburn Road) in Birmingham. The parties to the Agreement are the Passenger Transport Authority, Centro, Birmingham City Council, four bus operators and the West Midlands Police Authority. The principal bus operator, Travel West Midands (TWM), supports the concept of statutory partnership agreements provided that there is considerable input from all parties and close monitoring of post-implementation performance standards.

Consultation
Effective consultation is one of the key principles underlying the Bus Showcase concept. The three stages of consultation are: initial consultation on the preliminary design, including options where they are available; local consultation on shelter locations; and further consultation on detailed designs including Traffic Orders and any land acquisition. Consultation methods include use of libraries, local halls, a low floor exhibition bus, road signs displaying a telephone ’hot line’ number, leaflet drops to all affected frontages, leaflets and posters on buses.

- 191 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Marketing
Comprehensive marketing takes place in advance of the launch day for every new Showcase route. A typical Showcase marketing campaign includes door-to-door delivery of timetable leaflets, advertising in the local press and radio, information on Centro and bus operator web sites and a press release. A marketing budget of approximately £25,000 is recommended. Implementation Line 33 Birmingham to Pheasey was the first Showcase scheme to be introduced in 1997. Birmingham City Council and Centro spent £2.9 million on infrastructure and TWM invested £1.2 million in new buses. Three more routes have been completed at a combined capital cost to local authorities and Centro of £7.4 million, excluding operator contributions in the form of new buses. They are: Primeline 20/40/48/50 Coventry to Bedworth. Superline 171/301 Walsall to Moseley. Route 559/560 Wolverhampton to Bloxwich. A further five routes have been substantially completed at an estimated cost to local authorities and Centro of £16.3 million to date. TWM has offered a contribution of up to £30 million to supplement public sector funding for bus infrastructure in the West Midlands. By Summer 2003, more than £4 million had been spent or committed. For a project to qualify for a funding contribution there must be a business case showing a benefit to TWM. This means that the project will need to include radical bus priority measures at key congestion ’hot spots’. Enforcement A trial of bus lane enforcement is planned as soon as the expected legislation is in place. Two of the seven districts in the West Midlands already have decriminalised parking powers in place enabling them to make use of the new enforcement powers. Maintenance of standards Maintenance of quality standards is essential for the continued success of each Showcase route. This involves maintenance of road signs and carriageway markings, speedy repair of damage to shelters, frequent cleaning of shelters and the interior and exterior of buses, keeping timetable displays up-to-date, 100 per cent availability of branded buses, and cascading of older buses to lower profile services. Allocation of sufficient revenue funding to maintain quality is an essential part of the process.

- 192 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Monitoring
Method Comprehensive monitoring takes the form of bus and car journey time surveys, roadside bus reliability surveys, automatic traffic counts and analysis of bus patronage information collected via electronic ticket machines. Bus patronage data must be aggregated to avoid identifying passenger numbers on different services provided by different operators. Surveys of Showcase service users are undertaken to establish impact on travel patterns and views on the service provided. Impact The impact of Bus Showcase on bus patronage and mode share varies between routes. Overall, completed Showcase routes have achieved an increase in bus patronage of between 10 and 30 per cent, and a mode shift of about 5 per cent from private car. The introduction of articulated buses on Route 67 contributed to patronage growth of 29 per cent. The following table provides performance information for Line 33, Superline and Primeline: Line 33 Superline Primeline Percentage change in bus journey times: AM peak inbound PM peak outbound Percentage change in total patronage +28.8 +22.5 13 +10.3 6 -2 -6 +9 +4 +1 -2

Former car users as percentage of patronage 7

Increased bus patronage and increased numbers of mobility impaired passengers has resulted in increased bus boarding times which have the effect of reducing savings in bus journey times.

The future
Future initiatives will include pilot red route projects to keep traffic operating efficiently through better management of parking and loading, consideration of new branding proposals for the whole West Midlands multi-modal public transport network and consideration of some form of bus rapid transit network to provide an intermediate mode between Metro and Showcase.

Conclusions
Bus Showcase has been successful in a number of ways: the image of the bus has been raised, reliability has been improved and there have been significant increases in bus patronage. On average, mode transfer of 5 per cent has been achieved. The greatest impact was achieved when all elements of the Showcase scheme were implemented together.

- 193 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

References
Full information on the Showcase concept is given in the Bus Showcase Handbook published by Centro in 2003. This can be downloaded at: www.centro.org.uk/handbook/index.htm Periodic updates are planned.

Acknowledgements
This case study has been complied with the assistance of Centro, TWM and the West Midlands local authorities.

Other Examples
BusPlus, London Bus Initiative. Contact the TfL Bus Priority team on: 0207 960 6763. Edinburgh Greenways. Contact the Transport Projects Development Manager of the City Development Department at the City of Edinburgh Council on: 0131 469 3630.

Further Information
Further information can be obtained from: Centro Centro House 20 Summer Lane Birmingham B19 3SD 0121 200 2787 http://www.centro.org.uk

Leeds City Centre

- 194 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Description of need
Background Bus priority measures in Leeds City Centre form part of Leeds City Council’s broader transport strategy for the city centre which comprises four main elements: Leeds Inner Ring Road; ’city centre loop’ provides a high capacity, one-way loop around the city centre designed to efficiently allow motorised traffic to travel around the city centre, with access to the city centre at strategic points; ’public transport box’ sits within the city centre loop around which public transport and cyclists can easily navigate providing good access to the main retail core; and pedestrianised retail core. Problems During the early 1990s Leeds city centre began to face increasing competition from out of town business and shopping centres. At the same time traffic congestion and associated problems were making increasing demands on the limited road space available. These issues led to a fundamental re-think about traffic management, designed to address the traffic problems and at the same time revitalise the city centre environment for its users. Previously, most of the streets forming the box were one way and wide, up to four lanes, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross. The one way traffic system caused confusion for bus passengers as inbound and outbound stops serving the same service were often some distance apart on different streets. On Woodhouse Lane buses were subject to considerable disruption from other traffic, particularly on the inbound direction. Bus stops were regularly obstructed by cars waiting outside a popular supermarket. Also, buses requiring to make a right turn at the junction following the bus stop were required to cut across a heavy traffic stream in a very short distance to access the offside lane. Objectives The objectives of the city centre transport strategy are to: reduce traffic flows through the heart of the city, and thereby provide a more attractive and safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists; ensure that buses, taxis and cycles receive better priority in the core of the city centre; improve air quality in the city centre by reducing the volume of through traffic; create an attractive environment to encourage further retail and commercial development, by extending the pedestrianised zone in the city centre; and improve access to the city centre for disabled people and others with mobility difficulties.

- 195 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Scheme details
Description The public transport box is a priority route for buses, taxis and cycles, which runs around the pedestrian shopping centre via The Headrow, Vicar Lane, Boar Lane and Park Row. Cars and delivery vehicles can use the individual sections of the box to get to car parks or businesses, but cannot travel around or go from one section to another. At key points bus gates allow only buses, taxis and cycles through. The city council has introduced Traffic Regulation Orders making it illegal for unauthorised vehicles (private cars) to drive through the bus gates. Special blue traffic signs and contrasting red road surfacing differentiate bus gates. Key features of the scheme include: a nearside bus gateway on West Gate which enables buses to go straight ahead whilst offside general traffic turn left onto the city centre loop; a bus gateway on New Market Street; a bus gateway on Vicar Lane at the junction with Eastgate; a bus gateway at the Duncan Street/New Market Street junction providing buses with an unimpeded right turn; and improved circulation and control of traffic through Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC). Since road space on the public transport box is so intensively used, buses can be seriously disrupted by the violation of traffic and parking restrictions, therefore, continual enforcement of the measures is essential to ensure smooth running of traffic. In addition to the public transport box, a series of seven key public transport gateways were identified as critical to providing a link between the main radial roads and the public transport box. Four of these schemes have been implemented to date. The A660 Woodhouse Lane route to the north of the city was the first to be completed and is a typical example of the combination of measures used, although it employs the innovative use of a centre of carriageway bus boarding point which is unique in Leeds. Centre of carriageway bus boarding point Woodhouse Lane Centre of carriageway bus boarding point Woodhouse Lane The proposed Supertram would run along three sides of the public transport box. The future implementation of Supertram was taken into account in the design of the public transport box to minimise future disruptions. Implementation date The city centre loop and public transport box were completed in 1997. Changes were made to the operation of Park Row, which forms the western vertical side of the public transport box, in May 2000. Costs

- 196 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The total cost of the Public Transport Box was £1.5 million. The cost of the Woodhouse Lane Gateway including traffic management measures along the 1km route was £1.2million. Consultation Public consultation on the measures was undertaken as part of the consultation exercise leading to the publication of the City Transport Strategy in 1991 by a steering group involving, West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority, West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, Leeds City Council, Leeds Development Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce. Changes to traffic priorities and the closure of streets to traffic were achieved using conventional Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) issued by the city council. As part of the process of implementing the TROs the city council’s City Management Team consulted businesses in the city centre. Bus operators The majority of services using the public transport box are operated by First Leeds, however, other services include those operated by Arriva, Black Prince Coaches, Keithley and District, Yorkshire Coastliner, Yorkshire Traction and Harrogate & District Travel. Bus frequency There are approximately the following numbers of buses per hour in each direction on each of the sides of the public transport box: 80 buses per hour on the northern side along The Headrow; 65 buses per hour on the eastern side along Vicar Lane; 90 buses per hour on the southern side along Boar Lane; and 40 buses per hour on the western side along Park Road. The A660 Woodhouse Lane gateway is used by 40 to 50 buses per hour in each direction.

Illustration of scheme
Bus priority measures in Leeds City Centre Bus priority measures in Leeds City Centre

Before and after monitoring
Extensive peak period traffic counts were undertaken in 1990 at key city centre junctions prior to construction of the first phase of the public transport box. These were repeated in 2001 to provide an indication of progress and to determine a new city centre base against which future traffic changes will be assessed. (These latter counts included separate counts of taxis and private hire vehicles for which access restrictions to the Loop have been relaxed). In addition, there is a permanent air quality monitoring station located on New Market Street which was in place prior to the changes to traffic circulation in the city

- 197 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

centre. It is the intention of Leeds City Council to continue to monitor the impact of the strategy on the city centre. This will include surveys to determine the public response to the continuing efforts to improve the city centre environment for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

Results
Air quality Since the public transport box was introduced monitoring has recorded a general trend of improvements in air quality (NO2, PM10), part of which can be attributed to the success of the traffic management measures reducing the amount of extraneous traffic within the inner ring road and enforcement in keeping traffic moving efficiently. Journey times Monitoring of the Woodhouse Lane gateway has shown that inbound buses saved between 10 and 30 per cent on previous journey times. In the outbound direction, the revised signal arrangements have compensated for the removal of the previous bus lane without any detriment to journey times. Traffic flows The immediate measurable impact of the city centre loop and public transport box was the removal of traffic from the major city centre streets as shown in the table below. Location Cars & Taxis (Buses) AM Peak 08.00-09.00 1990 Park Row 1500 (70) Briggate 810 (123) 2001 51 (73) 0 (0) 160 (130)

Vicar Lane 1650 (156)

Examination of the city centre counts in conjunction with counts across a regular river bridge screenline indicate that the traffic removed from the centre has been ’absorbed’ on the network with no significant problems arising elsewhere. Accidents Before the construction of the city centre loop and public transport box there were typically 173 personal road injury accidents per year in the city centre. This has dropped to an average of 150 per year following the introduction of the city centre loop and public transport box. The most significant reduction in casualty numbers has been to pedestrians where the annual total has fallen from 97 to 70 per year, a reduction of 28 per cent.

- 198 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Conclusions
Reallocating road space has been crucial to many of the commercial developments which have contributed to the growth and the revitalisation of the city centre (Leeds central shopping area was ranked 3rd in the UK in 2003). The improvements have therefore contributed to wider social and economic objectives through the increased attractiveness of Leeds as a retail and business centre. The reduction of traffic in and around the city centre has produced a more pleasant environment for pedestrians and cyclists. The city centre measures have included a mix of established traffic management measures and innovation to make better use of road space. Therefore, the most important lesson to be learnt from these projects is that measures have to be designed around local conditions. The full benefits of the city centre loop and public transport box will not be finally realised until Leeds Inner Ring Road Stage 7, the final element of the original 1990 city centre traffic management strategy, is completed. This will remove further extraneous traffic from the city centre. The road space reallocation benefits will become fully apparent once the Leeds Supertram is introduced into the city centre.

Acknowledgements
This case study was produced with the assistance of Leeds City Council and Metro (West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive) and First Leeds. Further Information on the Leeds city centre bus priority measures can be obtained from: Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department The Leonardo Building, 2 Rossington Street, Leeds, LS2 8HB 0113 2477500 http://www.leeds.gov.uk

Other examples
The concept of the city centre loop and public transport box is unique. The priority bus gates were individually designed to suit the particular situations drawing on standard bus priority measures. However, there are good examples of priority bus gates in Wolverhampton City Centre.

Further information
Further information can be found in "Reallocating road space to buses and high occupancy vehicles in Leeds, Hall, A. W." published in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer 145, March 2001, Issue 1.

- 199 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Oxford, Historic City
Description of need
Background In the 1970s Oxford rejected road building as the answer to the problem of increased demand for travel due to the unacceptable environmental and property impacts and a desire to preserve the nature of the city. Instead the Balanced Transport Policy was developed, made up of a number of elements including park and ride schemes, parking controls, pedestrianisation and bus priority on the main radial routes into the city and city centre. Twenty years later in 1993 the Oxford Transport Strategy (OTS) was developed as a continuation of the Balanced Transport Policy initiated in the early 1970s. This was also a response to pedestrian/bus conflicts in the city centre shopping streets. Again enhanced park and ride remained central to the strategy. In association with this it was proposed to establish a bus priority route, enhance parking controls in the city centre and discourage through traffic by introducing bus gates and restricting the use of more streets through pedestrianisation, buses only and bus and access only in the city centre during the daytime. Oxford is a regional centre for employment, shopping and entertainment serving a population of half a million people as well as home to a large educational economy. The city is also a major tourist destination attracting approximately two million visits each year. The historic road structure in the city centre, combined with the increased demand for travel, puts enormous pressure on the road and public transport networks. The adopted transport strategy allows the consequent considerable travel demands to be successfully accommodated on a largely medieval road network, whilst protecting the historic environment and supporting Oxford’s economy. Objectives The Oxford Transport Strategy aimed to produce a step change in travel to and through the city centre, in order to release space for buses diverted from the pedestrianised Cornmarket Street. By reducing the level of private car traffic in the city it was hoped that conditions would improve for more sustainable modes including walking and cycling. It was also hoped that the continued development of bus priority and traffic management schemes would stop traffic transferring to alternative routes in other parts of the city without increasing congestion or adding to environmental degradation.

Scheme details
Description Before the city centre changes, allowing the pedestrainisation of the main shopping street and the daytime exclusion of through traffic, were introduced a package of accommodation measures were put in place. These were aimed at encouraging further modal shift to more sustainable modes and accommodating traffic routes changes. The works included a series of bus gates creating bus and pedestrian zones on Queen Street and Broad Street, the full pedestrianisation of Cornmarket Street and areas that can be used only by buses and access vehicles on High Street, Park End Street and Norfolk Street. Access restrictions apply 07.30 - 18.30 (10.00 - 18.00 on George Street).

- 200 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

There have been improvements to the railway station forecourt and its approach including a segregated bus stopping area and signal controlled access to the station. The improvements to radial routes included junction improvements to assist buses in entering the main flow of traffic. One example is on Woodstock Road, where park and ride buses leaving the Pear Tree park and ride site use a with-flow bus lane and a signal controlled bus gate to give buses priority over other traffic when entering the main carriageway. Improvements were also made at the signalised junction to the Redbridge park and ride site on Abingdon Road and on Botley Road to assist buses from the Seacourt park and ride. Oxford City Centre bus priority measures Oxford City Centre bus priority measures The Oxford Transport Strategy also involves the use of SCOOT traffic signal controls to give buses priority at signalised junctions. This measure has not fulfilled its full potential as the network is close to capacity for much for the time and therefore it has not been possible to give a substantial benefit to buses. Oxfordshire County Council pioneered working in partnership with the Highways Agency to introduce bus lanes on trunk roads between Thornhill and Pear Tree park and ride sites and the ring road. Cost The cost of the strategy measures implemented in the 1990s is estimated at £23 million. This included a package of measures such as bus lane extensions, pedestrianisation, traffic management and capacity enhancements. However, park and ride facilities are not included in this total. Bus operators Oxford is in the unusual position of having two strongly competitive bus companies with local operations of similar size. The Oxford Bus Company and Stagecoach in Oxfordshire match each other service for service on most routes in the city. This has contributed to a spiral of success in terms of the quality of service and vehicles provided in the city. It is also reflected in the high frequency of services running in evenings and on Sundays, creating an environment where public transport is an attractive option for most journey purposes. For example, services combine to give a headway of four minutes between buses on Cowley Road on Sunday mornings. This gives the population confidence in public transport as an alternative to private car. The Oxford Bus Company plans to introduce smartcards during autumn 2004. It is hoped this will improve reliability and halve the average boarding time on their services, which currently stands at eight seconds per passenger. Another initiative used in Oxford is route branding, with schemes such as the Brookes Bus, funded by Oxford Brookes University, linking campuses and the city centre. This group of services was introduced primarily for students, but they are well used by members of the public as well.

- 201 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Before and after monitoring
Monitoring of traffic levels within the city has been underway since the first wave of bus priority in the 1970s. This monitoring was further developed to assess the impacts of the Oxford Transport Strategy, looking not just at traffic flows but at other transport indicators such as air quality, journey times and modal shift: Automatic traffic counters are used to monitor traffic flows and are positioned around the city centre and just inside the ring road to give continuous data. Surveys of bus journey times were carried out between October and November 1999 and the results compared with similar surveys in the previous year. Both of the main bus operators collect information on passenger numbers. Modal shift is analysed through annual classified surveys - the 1991 survey is used to give a picture of Oxford before the Oxford Transport Strategy programme started. The air quality review was developed through European Union funding of a project called Environmental Monitoring of Integrated Transport Strategies which aims to monitor air quality changes associated with changes in traffic levels. This examined amongst other things level of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide.

Results
Traffic flows Cordon counts into the central area show that there has been no increase in traffic flows entering the city centre since the early 1970s. A reduction in traffic flow by an average of 18 per cent was measured between 1999 and 2002. The eastern radial corridors experienced the greatest impact with a reduction of 30 per cent over Magdalen Bridge (on the eastern approach to the city), whilst the southern radials were least affected with a reduction of only 9 per cent. The level of traffic on High Street after the bus gate was introduced reduced by 60 per cent between 1999 and 2002 (12 hour average weekday). Some routes have experienced an increase in traffic as vehicles are displaced from the central city streets. For example, Marston Ferry Road (north of Oxford centre) experienced a 12 per cent increase and Donnington Bridge (south east of Oxford centre) experienced an increase in the range 10 - 16 per cent in the year following implementation. Journey times On a two km stretch of bus lane introduced in 1997 from Kidlington to Summertown, journey times were halved from eight minutes to four minutes. Abingdon Road also experienced a reduction, with journey times being halved on the section from the ring road to the bus gate. Bus patronage

- 202 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus patronage has increased annually by 8-9 per cent since 1999. The modal share has also show a move from the use of private car towards bus. Comparison of modal split between 1991 and 2002 Mode 1991 2002 39 44 17

Car Use 54 Bus Use 27 Other 19

Source: Oxfordshire County Council Air quality There has been a 75 per cent reduction in the levels of carbon monoxide at St Aldates and a 20 per cent reduction in particulate matter on Cornmarket Street. The majority of air monitoring sites in the city show a reduction in the level of nitrogen dioxide.

Conclusions
Bus priority measures in Oxford have been effective as part of a package of measures including pedestrianisation of central areas and park and ride to create a modal shift from private car to public transport. Unlike many areas of the country, bus patronage has increased steadily with an 80 per cent increase between 1985 and 1998, in fact Oxfordshire has the second highest rate of bus use of the shire counties and is one of the least car dependent cities in the country. The lengthy experience of bus priority in the city has created an environment of acceptance of priority measures as part of the infrastructure of the city. The city has a strong pro cycling image which has been reinforced by the reduction in traffic on central streets, as cyclists feel safer and more confident.

The future
Since implementation of the first bus priority schemes in the 1970s, the city has experienced considerable change in travel patterns, partly reflecting the growth of towns and villages elsewhere in Oxfordshire. Given continual change, a number of corridors including Woodstock Road and Banbury Road are being reviewed to assess the scope for strengthening bus priority. In particular, there is a need to determine whether inbound or outbound bus priority will yield the greater benefit in locations where the carriageway is only wide enough to allow a bus lane to be introduced in one direction. There is increasing abuse of bus lanes and bus gates by moving vehicles. Advantage will be taken of legislation to enable camera enforcement of bus lanes and bus gates.

- 203 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Over the next ten years Oxfordshire County Council is planning to development a Premium Routes Network to give buses priority and enhanced frequency on links between urban centres. There is also a proposal for a Guided Transit Express scheme to serve the Redbridge and Pear Tree park and ride sites, with possible extensions to Heyford Hill, Headington and along the A40 corridor to Witney.

References
Director of Environmental Services, Oxford Transport Strategy Working Party - 27 October 2000: Review of impact of the central area changes, October 2000. Oxford City Council Transport in Oxford, Topic paper, December 2003. Oxfordshire County Council Best Practice Guides, January 2003. R Williams, Oxford’s park and ride system, Municipal Engineer 133 (p127-135), September 1999.

Acknowledgements
This document was produced with the assistance of Oxfordshire County Council, Oxford Bus Company and Stagecoach in Oxfordshire. Further information on bus priority measures in Oxford can be obtained from: Oxfordshire County Council, Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford ON1 1NE. The Environment and Economy Department can be contacted on: 01865 815700 or visit http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk. Other examples York Contact the main switchboard on: 01904 613161 Winchester Contact the main switchboard on: 01962 840222

Further information
Oxfordshire County Council Best Practice Guide No 3 Urban Bus priority is available from Oxfordshire County Council at the above address.

- 204 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Newport, Smaller Towns
Description of need
Background Newport, in South Wales, is the main hub of the regional bus network, with the majority of inter-urban services commencing/terminating at its bus station. Traffic levels in Newport have increased by 22% between 1990 and 2000; these are exacerbated by the riverside location of Newport, which restricts east-west traffic to three main crossing points. Market research, undertaken by the TIGER (Transport Integration in the Gwent Economic Region) Consortium in 2000, recorded that 97% of respondents rated bus service reliability as either ’important’ or ’very important’. A draft feasibility study, completed in March 2000, identified a number of locations where bus priority measures could increase bus service reliability. Phase 1 - Between Chepstow Road /Harrow Road and Old Green Roundabout was the main scheme and subject to the most comprehensive monitoring. Problems Rising congestion levels had increased bus journey times, and reduced the predictability of bus arrival times. This led to a decline in patronage levels with an associated increase in car use, which was economically and environmentally unsustainable. Objectives The primary aims of the Newport bus priority scheme were ’to reduce journey times and improve the reliability of bus services on the main corridors radiating from Newport city centre, by creating a highway infrastructure designed to give priority to buses’. The secondary aims of the scheme are to increase bus patronage and reduce dependence on the private car.

Scheme details
Phase 1: Between Chepstow Road/Harrow Road and Old Green Roundabout Description A number of measures were carried out to improve bus priority as part of Phase 1: ⢠Installation of westbound bus, cycle, motorbike and taxi lanes totalling 550 metres in length, operational between 07:00 and 19:00;

- 205 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

⢠Relocation of existing eastbound bus stop at Crown Buildings to dedicated bus bay; ⢠Town Bridge carriageway converted from substandard 4-lane carriageway to three standard lanes with an eastbound bus lane; and ⢠New traffic signals operated under MOVA (Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation) control designed to minimise the impact on the Cenotaph. Implementation date Works began in September 2001 and were completed in December 2001. Costs The Welsh Assembly supported the scheme through the Transport Grant funding. The total cost for Phase 1 and Phase 2 was £550,000. Consultation Consultation consisted of the following elements: Public Consultation Exhibition (details per sample leaflet), advertised by press release, posters in shops, libraries and buses. Additional leaflet drop to all businesses/residents, whose property fronts the scheme. Publication of Statutory public notices detailing proposed Traffic Regulation Order; Bus operators and frequencies During core hours (08:00 to 18:00) an average of 33 buses per hour utilise the Clarence Place/Town Bridge section as detailed below: Newport Transport operate 11 routes in this corridor, linking the east of the town with the town centre. Stagecoach in South Wales operate three inter urban routes on this corridor, linking Newport with Magor, Caldicot, Caerwent, Chepstow and Gloucester. Drakes Travel operate evening services for one route on the Newport to Chepstow Corridor. Welcome Travel operate a single return journey between Caerwent and Newport.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme

Before and after monitoring
Reliability A series of surveys were undertaken to assess the impact of the bus corridor improvements on the reliability of services.

- 206 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Dates and types of survey Before and after surveys were undertaken at Newport Bus Station on two days (Tuesday and Friday) enabling a statistically robust sample size to be achieved, reflecting variability between reliability levels on different days of the week. Samples were recorded between 07:00 and 19:00 to ensure that the majority of services were recorded and that the effect of variations that occurred throughout the day were minimised. Following collection of the data, the recorded arrival time for each service was compared to the scheduled arrival time and variations recorded. Analysis and results The Traffic Commissioners’ standards are that 95% of services should arrive no earlier than one minute or later than five minutes compared with the registered timetable. The data was analysed to determine the percentage of services that were more than five minutes late. In addition data was also analysed to provide an indication of the average length of time services arrived after the scheduled arrival time. The impact of measures is likely to be greater on local services than inter-urban routes, as the priority measures account for a greater proportion of the local service journey length. To reflect this pattern, analysis was split between urban and inter-urban routes. Tables 1 and 2 show before and after monitoring information for services using Chepstow Road. Tables 1 and 2 show before and after monitoring information for services using Chepstow Road Conclusions In overall terms, the reliability of Chepstow Road services entering Newport bus station has increased. The percentage of services that met the Traffic Commissioner’s criterion has increased from 76% to 87%. In addition, the average lateness for all services has reduced by 31 seconds. Newport urban services have demonstrated an improvement in reliability, with 95% of the sample entering the bus station within the Traffic Commissioner’s criterion. The quality of service has also improved, with average lateness reducing by 45 seconds. For inter-urban services there is a 10% improvement in services arriving within the Traffic Commissioner’s criterion. The greatest benefit has been a reduction in average lateness by 2 minutes and 49 seconds. This is extremely significant as the average lateness now falls within the target set by the Traffic Commissioner. While the scheme may only impact on the final stage of inter-urban services, this section is often the most important for passengers, as it can be extremely frustrating to complete the majority of your journey, only to be delayed by congestion at the end.

- 207 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

In conclusion the scheme has resulted in a positive impact on reliability of bus services. Bus patronage monitoring Changes in the level of bus patronage provide a valuable measure of the impact of this scheme on travel habits. To determine the impact of this scheme on travel habits, Electronic Ticket Machine (ETM) data was collected from the main regional bus operators before and after the works. Dates and types of survey Annual surveys are undertaken to determine the number of passenger journeys completed on each sample route, over a 31-day sample period. Data collection commences on the Sunday nearest the 1st October of each sample year, to ensure collection of an equal number of peak and off-peak days. Analysis and results To maintain operational confidentiality, results are recorded on an index, which illustrates relative trends in travel, without determining the performance of an individual route or operator. Analysis was undertaken on both local and inter urban services which utilise the scheme measures on their route. Table 3: Scheme impact on bus patronage Before After % Difference Total 100 106.2 6.2%

The rise in patronage, as shown in Table 3, demonstrates the positive impact of the scheme in promoting increased bus use. The increase in patronage has been achieved against a historical trend of declining bus patronage (Since 1996/97, bus patronage levels in South Wales have declined by nearly 11%). Analysis of TIGER Package A - (Ebbw Vale/Brynmawr to Newport and Chepstow bus corridor improvement scheme) indicated that on this corridor as a whole, patronage on inter-urban bus services had increased by 2.85% between 2000 (pre-scheme) and 2001 (post-scheme), compared to a 4.16% decline in patronage in the region as a whole over the same period.

Conclusions
The increase in patronage by over 6% indicates the added value of the scheme in promoting additional travel on local services. Operators’ comments

- 208 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

One of the main aims of the scheme is to enable the bus operators to provide reliable services that can be seen as a viable alternative to the private car. While the data-monitoring programme has been designed to analyse the various impacts of the scheme (such as journey time and reliability), these only provide a snapshot of the impact during the sample period. By contrast operational experience has been gained on a daily basis, therefore the importance of this method of monitoring cannot be over emphasised. The impact of the scheme on their bus services will vary between operators, depending on their service patterns. For example the greatest impact was anticipated to be on Newport Transport services, given that they operate a number of high frequency bus services, with the scheme accounting of a quarter of the route length. By contrast Stagecoach services are long distance, with a lower frequency, of which the scheme will only account for a low percentage of the total route length, albeit this section has experienced the greatest delays with a detrimental effect on operational reliability. Analysis and results To assess the impact, interviews were held with the managers of each of the three main bus-operating companies. These identified a number of common benefits and issues. The positive impact of the scheme is summarised with the following quote from the major regional operator in respect of bus priority measures currently being planned on Malpas Road: ’We support any measures to give buses priority at a time when the general trend is for increasing bus journey times due to ever increasing congestion and on street parking. I sincerely hope that any pressure to reduce the benefits of these proposals are resisted and that the good work already achieved elsewhere in Newport (on Chepstow Road) can also be applied in this area’. The main benefits of the various bus priority measures identified by the operators are: Increased journey time reliability; Reduction of lost/cancelled service; More efficient fleet utilisation; Reduced journey times through the ability to by-pass congestion; Service enhancements increased frequency without additional vehicles; More effective route planning; Increased operational efficiency; Increased customer satisfaction; Improved working environment for driver aiding recruitment and retention; and Publicity benefits. One of the main benefits identified by operators is the ability to run a reliable service. In particular, the reduction of journey times along the scheme enables companies to make up time ’lost’ along more congested sections of the route. This provides benefits to passengers as the increased stability of the network results in fewer services being cancelled or rescheduled at short notice. This also enables services to operate consistently within the guidelines set by the Traffic Commissioner.

- 209 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Despite concerns about enforcement, negative publicity and congestion on untreated sections of the route negating scheme benefits, the bus priority scheme has provided a range of benefits to the operators, which enable service enhancements to the travelling public, encouraging increased bus use.

Acknowledgements
This was produced with the assistance of Newport City Council and Capita Symonds.

Further information
Further information on this special initiative can be obtained from: Glyn Stickler, Newport City Council, Civic Centre, Newport, NP9 4UR http://www.newport.gov.uk

Other examples
In addition to this scheme there are two further schemes in the Newport area: A48 Cardiff Road Bus priority measures: Physical work completed, however re-phasing of traffic lights ongoing to optimise traffic flows. In addition, on going construction of Newport Strategic Distributor Road, has resulted in traffic diverting along Cardiff road, preventing accurate scheme monitoring. Malpas Road Bus Priority measures: Physical work on Malpas Road was completed in June 2004 and is now fully operational. Newport Intelligent Traffic Signals: Implementation of traffic signal priority for buses through transponder activation. Transport Grant funding application approved by Welsh Assembly Government. Work due to commence in next financial year.

West Bromwich Town Centre
Description of need
Background During 2001 a new traffic management scheme was introduced in West Bromwich to tackle traffic congestion, discourage through traffic and improve conditions for buses and pedestrians. The scheme included several bus priority measures. In 2002 a new bus station was introduced to provide increased capacity, improve accessibility and enhance interchange with Midland Metro. A vision to regenerate the town centre emerged from a master planning exercise. The main elements of the transport strategy were conversion of the West Bromwich Ringway from a one-way gyratory to a two-way carriageway with bus priority and a bus gate to discourage through traffic, reduce peak period congestion, allow all cross-town bus services to call at the bus station and improve conditions for pedestrians. Relocation of the bus station released land to accommodate a new town square and a centre linking art and the creative use of technology.

- 210 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Midland Metro Line 1 was opened in 1999 and passes to the south of West Bromwich town centre. One objective of the strategy was to encourage use of Midland Metro by discouraging through traffic in West Bromwich town centre. It was hoped that this would also be of benefit to Showcase Route 404 (Walsall West Bromwich - Blackheath). Problems The West Bromwich Ringway acted as a large gyratory system carrying all traffic around the town centre in a clockwise direction. Buses were delayed in peak period traffic congestion on the Ringway and the roads approaching junctions on the Ringway. In free-flow conditions traffic speeds were high. Pedestrians relied on unattractive subways to cross the Ringway to the retail core and bus station. The old bus station was not fully accessible, did not present an attractive environment and lacked capacity. Not all bus services could use the old bus station - cross-town services routed via High Street on both sides of the town centre did not call to avoid the need to make a complete circuit of the Ringway before resuming their route. The old bus station was remote from the West Bromwich Central tram stop and therefore did not cater for bus/tram interchange. West Bromwich Town Centre West Bromwich Town Centre Objectives The Transport Strategy for the town centre included the following objectives: Moving the Bus Station to a site closer to the Midland Metro tram stop to encourage bus/tram interchange; Ensuring that all bus services could use call at the new Bus Station without the need to follow circuitous routes; Removing bus stops on the Ringway thereby reducing the need for bus users to cross the Ringway; Providing priority for buses, taxis and cyclists on the Ringway; Providing an element of traffic restraint by discouraging through traffic; Imposing parking charges in the town centre; and Improving safety and the environment for pedestrians by replacing subways under the Ringway with traffic signal controlled crossings.

Scheme details
Description West Bromwich Ringway was converted from a one-way gyratory to a two-way road. Traffic signal control with SCOOT was implemented at all main junctions on the Ringway. It was anticipated that the number of traffic signal installations on the Ringway would help to discourage through traffic. A new bus station was built on the south side of the retail core, releasing the site of the former bus station for other uses. A bus gate was provided on the western side of the Ringway to improve conditions for buses and pedestrians, and to reduce the level of traffic using the western side of the Ringway. An inbound with-flow bus lane was provided on High Street to give priority to buses, taxis and cyclists.

- 211 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Traffic signal control was provided at the new bus station entry/exit on the south side of the Ringway, a buses only right turn lane was provided to assist westbound buses enter the bus station, and a surface pedestrian route was provided to West Bromwich Central tram stop with a traffic signal crossing of the Ringway. Traffic calming works were undertaken in a number of streets to prevent traffic avoiding the Ringway by using alternative routes around the town centre. The new West Bromwich bus station has 22 stands and is capable of handling up to 220 departures an hour. It is fully accessible with raised kerbs at all stands; there is a fully enclosed passenger area with bus-operated doors at all stands; and it includes CCTV surveillance and electronic passenger information displays. Implementation date West Bromwich Ringway was converted from a one-way gyratory to two-way carriageway in August 2001. The with-flow bus lane on High Street, the bus gate on New Street, the buses only right turn on Cronehills Linkway and side road traffic calming were all introduced at this time. The new bus station opened in April 2002. Costs The main element of the funding package was a major Local Transport Plan bid submitted to government jointly by Sandwell Council and Centro. The total cost of the project was £11.3 million of which the new bus station accounted nearly 50 per cent. Planning context and consultation The master plan for West Bromwich town centre was subjected to public consultation during May and June 1998. The strategy for traffic management and public transport was an integral part of the master plan. Consultation took the form of a public exhibition in the Queen Square retail area of the town centre, written consultation with all town centre businesses and distribution of 10,000 explanatory leaflets. The master plan was adopted as an Interim Planning Statement in 1999 and now forms part of the Sandwell Unitary Development Plan Review adopted by the Borough Council in April 2004. Further consultation focusing on the proposals for traffic management and public transport took place in 1999 and included written consultation with all town centre businesses and discussions with the owners of properties affected by the scheme. There was also a statutory process of consultation associated with a Compulsory Purchase Order and Traffic Regulation Orders. Bus operators Travel West Midlands is the principal bus operator serving West Bromwich. The only other operator of substantial size is Pete’s Travel. Both companies operate buses on Showcase Route 404 linking Walsall and West Bromwich.

- 212 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus frequency During a typical weekday inter-peak hour there are 141 departures from West Bromwich bus station, 27 inbound buses using the bus lane on High Street and a two-way total of 124 buses using the bus gate on New Street.

Before and after monitoring
Dates and type of surveys A biennial roadside cordon survey is undertaken at locations on all approaches to West Bromwich town centre as part of the Local Transport Plan monitoring process. Public transport counts are taken at the same time. Data collection takes place in late March each year. Data for the year 2000 represents the before situation and precedes the commencement of works. Data collected in 2002 represents the situation after completion of the traffic management and bus priority measures. The new bus station was not opened until April 2002, after completion of the 2002 surveys. Type of surveys Three types of information were collected: ⢠Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data was collected on all approaches to the town centre. Manual classified counts were carried out at four of the survey sites to provide assessments of modal split and vehicle occupancy. A bus cordon survey provided counts of bus passenger numbers.

Results
In comparing ’before and after’ traffic and public transport data for West Bromwich it is necessary to be aware that Midland Metro Line 1 opened in May 1999 and patronage continued to build up in the period 2000-2002. This makes it difficult to isolate the impact of the changes to the West Bromwich Ringway and the accompanying bus priority measures. The key findings of a comparison of data for 2000 and 2002 are summarised below: The number of car trips crossing the cordon around West Bromwich town centre has decreased. The mode share accounted for by public transport has increased and now accounts for 32.2% of all trips in West Bromwich. Table 1 shows the reduction in the number of vehicles crossing the town centre cordon during different periods of the day. Some substantial reductions were recorded between 2000 and 2002 - 16 per cent in the morning peak period, 12.5 per cent in the afternoon peak period and 12.5 per cent in a 12 hour day (07.00 - 19.00). Table 1 shows the reduction in the number of vehicles crossing the town centre cordon during different periods of the day

- 213 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Implementation of the scheme provides a number of benefits for bus operators: it establishes an interchange that can be served by all bus services and the location of the new bus station catered for bus/tram interchange. The time savings from reduced peak period traffic congestion and avoidance of the need for circuitous routes around the Ringway were used to improve reliability rather than to reduce scheduled journey times. Monitoring data indicates an increase in the annual number of bus passengers using West Bromwich bus station from 5.83 million before the scheme to a current level of 6.27 million representing an increase of 7 per cent. It is estimated that opening of the new bus station resulted in a 1 per cent transfer from car to bus equating to an annual reduction of 62,600 car trips. Table 2 shows the change in mode share crossing the West Bromwich town centre cordon in the period 1998 - 2002. Table 2 shows the change in mode share crossing the West Bromwich town centre cordon in the period 1998 - 2002 Future developments A Tesco-led retail development on the north side of the town centre will result in diversion of the Ringway to the north of the proposed development. This will enable realisation of the ’town square’ concept with better operating conditions for buses and further improvement to the environment for pedestrians. All traffic signal installations in the Ringway are under SCOOT control and the controllers are set up for selective vehicle detection using GPS technology. This system will be activated once equipment is fitted to buses operating on services in the area. The Council intends to take advantage of the expected legislation permitting the use of cameras for the detection of moving vehicle infringements of bus lanes and the New Street bus gate in order to control increasing abuse by general traffic.

Conclusions
The reduction in traffic crossing the West Bromwich town centre cordon between 2000 and 2002 suggests that there has been a reduction in through traffic resulting from the restraint imposed by the New Street bus gate and the number of sets of traffic signals to be passed on the Ringway. The future introduction of selective bus detection and the ability to use camera enforcement should make the bus priority measures more effective. Relocation of the bus station, the introduction of two-way traffic on the Ringway and the provision of a with-flow bus lane on High Street permitted the concentration of all bus services in the bus station improving access to the retail core and encouraging bus/tram interchange.

- 214 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, Centro and Travel West Midlands. Other examples Leeds city centre Further information from Leeds City Council (or see the case study in this resource pack) Wolverhampton (use of bus gates in city centre) Wolverhampton City Council Regeneration & Transportation Heatun House Salop Street Wolverhampton WV3 0SQ 01902 555745 http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk

Further information
Further information on the West Bromwich scheme can be obtained from: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Department of Planning and Development Services Development House Lombard Street West Bromwich B70 8RU 0121 569 4136 http://www.sandwell.gov.uk

- 215 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Centro Centro House 20 Summer Lane Birmingham B19 3SD 0121 200 2787 http://www.centro.org.uk

Case studies
Guide to case studies
Introduction
This section of the resource pack contains a series of case studies by type of bus priority measure providing practical information drawn from experience of successful bus priority schemes implemented around the country. The case studies are designed to demonstrate the range of possible measures and also give some indication of under what conditions they might be suitable for consideration. It is important to remember that there isn’t an ’off the shelf’ solution that will maximise the benefits to buses regardless of location. The most appropriate measure in any one location will depend upon the local conditions prevailing in that area. Traffic levels, the number and frequency of bus services, available carriageway width and the types of properties fronting onto the road are some of the factors that need to be taken into account when considering the most appropriate bus priority measure for that location.

The case studies
Groups of measures are colour-coded to assist navigation of the case studies in this section. The first group covers with-flow and contra-flow bus lanes (light purple). These measures mark out a lane of the carriageway for use by buses. They require sufficient carriageway width to enable them to be installed. With-flow lanes are amongst the most commonly adopted physical bus priority measures in this country. Contra-flow bus lanes, where the buses travel in the opposite direction to the main flow of vehicles, are less common but can be useful for example by providing a more direct route to a town centre than is available for general traffic. They also tend to be self enforcing. Further development of the conventional with-flow bus lane can include more comprehensive corridor/whole route treatments such as green routes (dark purple). Bus gates and rising bollards (dark blue) tend to be considered when access to a particular street is to be restricted to buses (and any other designated vehicle e.g. taxi or cycle). Bus gates can be traffic signals, actuated by the buses or simply signs restricting access to buses. Rising bollards provide a physical barrier that lowers out of the way when actuated by the bus. They can be particularly useful in enabling direct access by bus to areas where it is desirable to prevent other vehicles entering, such as shopping streets in

- 216 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

town and city centres. Guided busways (blue) are a method for obtaining complete physical segregation of buses from other road traffic. As the name implies, a guided bus is one that travels on its own dedicated carriageway or track which ’guides’ the steering of the bus. Higher speeds can be achieved in the guideway and the presence of the guideway infrastructure can help impart the impression that guided busways offer some of the attributes of a light rail scheme. They are, also by their design, self enforcing. The five case studies on pre signals and bus advance areas, Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD), MOVA, Bus SCOOT and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) (light green) are examples of different technology based solutions to providing bus priority. Pre signals and bus advance areas enable the bus to get to the front of other traffic at junctions. The other four are sometimes referred to as ’virtual’ bus priority in that they do not require any physical space to implement them. In contrast to measures requiring physical use of road space, these measures use various methods of communication to detect the presence of buses and activate traffic lights to give priority to buses at junctions. The various technologies described in these case studies range from those which detect when a bus arrives at the traffic lights and then seeks to turn the lights green for the bus as soon as possible, through to technologies which can detect the location of a bus as it passes along its route and seek to set the lights ahead to provide priority to the bus. Mixed priority street and bus friendly traffic calming (green) are traffic management techniques that allow buses to operate in street environments which are more sympathetic to pedestrians and cyclists whilst also affording some priority to buses. Traffic calming measures may be suitable in areas where bus services run infrequently and the case for bus priority may be relatively weak. The introduction of well designed traffic management measures can improve the general flow of traffic, which benefits buses too. This approach may best suit semi-rural areas and small to medium-sized towns, where there is often simply not enough available road space to introduce certain types of bus priority. The group which includes High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and no-car lanes (yellow) are variants on the bus lane approach but differ in their designation of the type of vehicle allowed into the priority lane. HOV lanes can be suitable where there are insufficient bus services to justify a full bus lane, but there is a desire to give priority to vehicles with more than just one person on board. No car lanes are sometimes considered in town centres where the authority also wishes to give assistance to delivery lorries and to motorcycles. Park and ride (orange) focuses on getting people to use the bus instead of their cars, for the final leg of their inward journey. It requires sufficient space on the edge of town centres to provide adequate parking facilities. Park and ride schemes will also usually incorporate a high level of bus priority on the transfer route so that potential passengers can see a clear benefit over the private car. All of the measures described in these case studies should be supported by complementary measures (red). Measures to improve the bus stop environment can help improve boarding times and speed up services. Other measures such as prepaid ticketing can also assist this process. These final two case study leaflets provide a number of different examples of complementary measures.

- 217 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

With-flow bus lanes
Description of need
Background A strategic transport study carried out in 1995 predicted traffic and pollution problems that central Leicestershire would face in the next ten years. The research showed that radical measures would be needed to reduce car use, congestion and pollution. Longer-term measures would need to include: congestion charging; park and ride facilities; and better public transport. The first park and ride scheme was introduced in 1997 for the west of the city. The local authority introduced extensive with-flow bus lanes for all public bus services as well as the park and ride services. Problems The key predictions from the transport study for central Leicestershire were: the total number of journeys will increase by 11 per cent; the proportion of trips made by car will increase and car travel will account for 81 per cent of person trip miles; there will be greater pressure on city centre parking; walking, cycling and bus use will all decline; road traffic accidents will increase by 19 per cent; and emissions of CO² and other pollutants will increase by 15 to 20 per cent. Objectives As part of Leicester’s park and ride strategy, the bus initiative aimed to: make the city centre more accessible; provide high quality bus services to and from the city centre from surrounding areas; increase the number of people using the bus for all journeys; reduce the number of car journeys into the city centre; reduce pressure on city centre parking; and help cut pollution and improve the environment.

Scheme details
Description

- 218 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The project included the following elements: 24 hour bus lanes (permitting cyclists, and taxis as of 1999); red surfacing of bus lanes; and minor junction improvements. In total, 4.5km of bus lanes were introduced over a total road length of 6km. Entering the city (inbound), bus lanes are usually continuous and provide a high level of priority for local and park and ride buses. However, leaving the city (outbound), bus lanes were only introduced at major hot spots due to the narrowness of the road. Owing to the considerable length of the bus lanes along Hinckley Road, there are a number of different frontage types. Industrial, retail and residential land uses are all found alongside the bus lanes, residential being the most prevalent. Implementation date The scheme was completed in August 1997. Costs The total cost of the bus priority measures was £1.2 million. Consultation Public exhibitions were held along with roadside and household questionnaires. The police were also consulted. They requested that bus lanes that permitted shared use with cyclists should be at least 3.5 metres wide. The width of bus lane on Hinckley Road varies between 3.0 and 3.5 metres; this is largely dependent on the available carriageway width. Bus operators The main bus operators running services along the Hinckley Road corridor are First Leicester and Arriva Midland. Less frequent services are operated by Stagecoach Midland Red and Centrebus. Bus frequency Park and ride buses on this corridor operate four buses an hour at peak times. Frequencies of other services on Hinckley Road vary between 1 and 6 per hour, with a combined total of at least 30 buses per hour operating over the Glenfield Street to St Nicholas Circle section of the bus lane.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring

- 219 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Dates of surveys The scheme corridor was monitored before implementation in 1997 and after implementation, in January 1998. Types of surveys As part of the project, the effects on general traffic and bus passengers were monitored. The main survey areas were bus and car journey times, traffic flows into the city and park and ride use.

Results
Traffic flows Traffic flow was recorded on Leicester’s principal routes during the project. The county council’s automatic traffic counters on the A47 Hinckley Road recorded similar levels of traffic before and after the initiative. Weekday inbound flows increased by 6 per cent between October 1997 and May 1998, while outbound flows reduced by 2 per cent. However, during the morning inbound peak hour, the Hinckley Road corridor saw a 17 per cent reduction in vehicles, from 1,100 to 910. There was a similar reduction of 150 vehicles during the afternoon outbound peak. Journey times Comparisons of bus and car journey times on Hinckley Road following the introduction of bus priority measures show a significant reduction for buses and little change for cars. Bus journey times during the morning inbound peak were cut from 23 to 18 minutes: a 22 per cent reduction. During the afternoon outbound peak, they dropped by 23 per cent. Bus priority measures had a minimal effect on car journey times. During the morning inbound peak they dropped by 5 per cent and during the afternoon outbound peak they increased by 2 per cent. The bus lane had an even greater effect on the new park and ride buses. The average journey time on the park and ride service was 12 minutes: nearly one and a half minutes faster than the average journey time for cars. Taking account of the additional time it would take a motorist to park in the city centre, there is a clear time benefit to bus users. Importantly, the difference between journey times for cars and buses narrowed considerably as a result of the new bus lanes. Before the bus lanes were introduced, afternoon outbound peak bus journeys were seven minutes slower than car journeys. Afterwards, the difference was reduced to less than two minutes. Bus and car journey times at peak periods Bus and car journey times at peak periods Reliability

- 220 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Journey time surveys on Hinckley Road showed that the bus lanes greatly improved the reliability of services. As a result of the scheme, unreliability has been halved to just two and a half minutes in the morning inbound peak.

Conclusions
Following the bus priority measures, bus services to and from the city were much faster. During the busiest times, local bus services are now about 22 per cent faster than before, and only slightly slower than car journeys. Park and ride buses can cover the distance to and from the city centre nearly one and a half minutes faster than cars. When parking times are taken into account, bus journeys are at best faster and at worst much the same as car journeys. The reduction in peak hour traffic flows, faster bus journey times and bus reliability improvements are all indicative that the project has successfully met its objectives.

References
LERTS, Leicester environmental road tolling scheme, 1999.

Acknowledgements
This document was produced with the assistance of the Environment, Regeneration and Development Department at Leicester City Council. For further information, contact the ERD Department on: 0116 2526339 or email: environment.helpline@leicester.gov.uk

Other examples
Kingsway, Bedford Contact the Traffic Management Department at Bedfordshire County Council for more details on: 01234 228686. King Street ,Dudley Contact Traffic Management and Development at Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council for more details at: transp.due@dudley.gov.uk

Further information
The following documents offer guidance for the implementation of with-flow bus lanes: DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. London Bus Priority Network Design Brief, LTB, 1994. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, The Stationery Office, 2002. Further information may also be sought from:

- 221 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Hounsell NB and McDonald M, Evaluation of Bus Lanes, CR87 Transport Research Laboratory, 1985 - 93. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/01, Bus Priority, Traffic Advisory Unit, 2001.

Contra-flow bus lanes
Description of need
Background Rotherham Interchange is situated on the northern fringe of Rotherham town centre. It is the focal point for local bus services in the Rotherham area. Corporation Street is a road extending south through the town centre from the Interchange. Corporation Street used to be a one-way street carrying northbound traffic. It formed part of the route through the town centre to the Interchange for bus services from the south of the town. It is a secondary shopping street at the eastern end of the central retail area. Northbound traffic is moderate and much of the pedestrian activity is focused on the bus stops and taxi rank. Location plan showing before and after routes Problems Buses leaving Rotherham Interchange used to follow a circuitous route via Bridge Street, College Road, Centenary Way and Main Street to gain access to roads to the south west of the town centre. Buses leaving the Interchange experienced substantial delays in joining the ring road at the roundabout junction of College Road and Centenary Way. In peak periods buses were also delayed at the Masbrough Street roundabout on the ring road. Objectives The scheme has been designed to: improve penetration of the town centre by bus services; improve reliability and reduce variability of journey time by avoiding delay at the Centenary Way/ College Road roundabout; provide a more direct route and reduce bus journey times; improve safety and the environment for pedestrians on Corporation Street; and increase bus patronage by encouraging transfer from private car.

Scheme details
Description The scheme consists of a southbound contra-flow bus lane extending for 280 metres between the Bridge Street exit from the Interchange and Market Square (the junction of Market Place, High Street and Westgate). There are two bus stops in the contra-flow bus lane and another two bus stops with bus stop clearway protection in the northbound general traffic lane. There is a short 24 hour bus lane in the centre

- 222 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

of the carriageway at the north end of Corporation Street to provide access to Rotherham Interchange for northbound buses. Some carriageway widening was necessary to cater for two-way operation and provide enough room for bus stops, loading bays, parking spaces for disabled people and a taxi rank. Modifications were made to the signal-controlled junctions at both ends of Corporation Street and a Pelican crossing was upgraded to a Puffin. Three ramped pedestrian crossing areas were provided to ensure vehicle speeds were kept down. Buses are the only category of vehicle permitted to use both the contra-flow bus lane and the short northbound bus lane that provides access to the Interchange. The contra-flow bus lane varies in width with a minimum of about 3.0 metres over a distance of about 30 metres. Implementation date Work on site commenced in May 2002 and the contra-flow bus lane was opened in late October 2002. Detailed scheme layout Detailed scheme layout Costs The scheme cost £450,000 of which £250,000 was attributable to the contra-flow bus lane and £200,000 to environmental improvements. The works funded included replacement of two signalised junctions, upgrading of a Pelican to a Puffin crossing, and green surfacing of the full length of the bus lane. Other improvements included level footways through vehicle crossings, new flags and block paving at vehicle crossings, new lighting columns, and new litter bins, bollards and railings. Consultation A small exhibition was held in Rotherham town centre to gauge public feeling towards the proposals. During conceptual design, meetings were held with owners and occupiers of frontage properties on Corporation Street and other premises affected by the proposals. The intention was to identify and resolve potential problems with deliveries and access. Further meetings with owners and occupiers took place before scheme design was finalised. Comprehensive consultation ensured that only one objection was received when the proposals were advertised. Extensive consultation with bus operators took place throughout the project and covered scheme development, programming and accommodation works. Quality Bus Corridor meetings arranged by South Yorkshire PTE provided the opportunity for discussion. The Council’s Access Officer was involved in design work to ensure that the needs of elderly and disabled people were fully met. Before work started, owners and occupiers of frontage properties were visited to agree access arrangements during construction. During the week prior to opening of the contra-flow bus lane, leaflets were handed out to pedestrians on Corporation Street to ensure awareness of the new road layout and two-way operation on Corporation Street.

- 223 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus operators First in South Yorkshire operate virtually all services on Corporation Street. One other company operates a few journeys. Bus frequency Provision of the new contra-flow bus lane allowed the diversion of eight southbound bus services via Corporation Street. They have a combined frequency of 24 to 25 buses per hour in daytime on weekdays.

Before and after monitoring
Dates and types of survey ’Before’ bus journey time and bus occupancy surveys were undertaken during May and June 1999. South Yorkshire PTE is to carry out ’after’ surveys following implementation of other schemes on the Sheffield - Rotherham - Doncaster Quality Bus Corridor. Cordon counts of traffic entering Rotherham town centre are undertaken during the first two weeks of October every year. ’Before’ traffic count data are available for 2002 and ’after’ traffic count data will be available in October 2003. Results Information supplied by First in South Yorkshire identifies benefits to the operation of bus services resulting from implementation of the contra-flow bus lane: Services bound for Canklow Road: Distance operated per trip was reduced by 0.8km. On Services 130/132 (6 per hour) running time to Canklow was reduced from 10 to 8 minutes. As running time allowed to Canklow on longer distance services 13/29/264 (1 to 2 per hour) was only 7 minutes, the benefit took the form of improved reliability. Services bound for Sheffield Road (5 per hour): Distance operated per trip was reduced by 0.8km. Running time was not reduced because the scheduled time to the next timing point was considered to be tight. Benefits took the form of improved reliability. Services bound for Masbrough Street (12 per hour): There was no saving in distance operated as the old and new routes were similar in length. At first, running time was reduced because delay was avoided at the junction of College Way and Centenary Way. This proved to be optimistic and the reduction in running time was removed. The scheme allowed the introduction of a new and more convenient bus stop serving the main shopping area. There is anecdotal evidence that the increased pedestrian activity around the new bus stops has helped to regenerate the area. South Yorkshire Police insist that buses should not cross the central white line in the road unless authorised by a police officer. An emergency plan has been drawn up for alternative routes and provision of a recovery vehicle to deal with vehicle breakdowns in the contra-flow bus lane. All street works are planned and alternative routes agreed in advance with bus operators via South Yorkshire PTE.

- 224 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Traffic Flows No adverse impact was experienced by general traffic using Corporation Street in the northbound direction. Although ’after’ traffic count data is not yet available, observation suggests no noticeable change in traffic volume.

Conclusions
Introduction of the contra-flow bus lane provided a more direct route through the town centre for a number of bus services. It also allowed the introduction of more convenient outbound bus stops serving the town centre. Reduced journey times were achieved on some services. On others, the reduction in journey time was used to improve reliability.

Acknowledgements
This was produced with the assistance of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and First in South Yorkshire.

Other Examples
Russell Square, London WC1 Contact the London Borough of Camden on: 020 7278 4444 (main switchboard). Ask for the Team Manager of the Transportation and Engineering Department. North Lane, Leeds Contact Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department on: 0113 247 7500.

Further Information
Further information on the Corporation Street contra-flow bus lane can be obtained from: Rotherham Metropolitan District Council, Planning, Transportation and Tourism Service, Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD 01709 822958 http://www.rotherham.gov.uk

- 225 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive PO Box 801, Exchange Street, Sheffield S2 5YT 0113 276 7575 http://www.sypte.co.uk Other general guidance on the implementation of schemes such as this can be found in the following: DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, The Stationery Office, 2002.

Green routes
Description of need
Background Hertfordshire’s Green Routes form part of the strategy for delivering the bus policy set out in the Local Transport Plan. In particular, Green Routes are intended to help to deliver improved reliability through bus priority, enhanced service levels, better quality buses, a more accessible bus network and better facilities and information for passengers. The A412 St. Albans Road is located to the north of Watford and connects the town centre to the A405 Kingsway North Orbital Road. The overall aim of the scheme was to make use of road space on St. Albans Road, released by the opening of a new parallel road, in order to provide priority for buses and encourage modal shift to buses. Problems The numerous bus services using St. Albans Road suffered from poor reliability as buses were delayed by traffic congestion. Objectives The overall objectives of Green Routes in Hertfordshire are to provide a more reliable service, an increased level of service, accessible buses and bus stops, better facilities for passengers at bus stops and high quality information through partnership between the County Council and bus operators. The aims specific to the St. Albans Road Green Route project were to provide a more reliable and attractive bus service, encourage modal shift in favour of the bus, improve overall access to the town and assist people with restricted mobility. The five specific objectives are as follows:

- 226 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

to improve bus operations and passenger facilities with extra priority for buses; to discourage cars and commercial vehicles from using the A412 St. Albans Road in favour of the parallel A4008 Stephenson Way; to encourage a modal shift towards the bus whilst improving overall access to the town and assisting people with restricted mobility; to introduce safe and convenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists; and to encourage Heavy Goods Vehicles to use St. Albans Road for access only.

Illustration of scheme
St. Albans Road Green Route St. Albans Road Green Route

Scheme details
Description The scheme extends northwards along the A412 St. Albans Road from Watford Junction in the south to a point close to the junction with the A405(T) Kingsway North Orbital Road. The opening of the A4008 Stephenson Way connecting Watford with the M1 and A41 (T) in 1993 created the opportunity to introduce priority for buses on the A412 utilising road space released by traffic transferring to Stephenson Way. Priority for buses was provided by the designation of with-flow bus lanes totalling 885 metres in length, installation of pre signals at three junctions and introduction of selective vehicle detection in an enhanced version of SCOOT. Accessibility was improved by the introduction of low floor buses and the installation of easy access kerbs at bus stops. Improvements were made to facilities for passengers through the installation of new shelters and provision of improved seating, street lighting and timetable displays. Measures were also introduced to increase pedestrian safety through improvement works at a pedestrian crossing and the introduction of signal controlled pedestrian crossing facilities at two locations. The overriding need to manage traffic entering and leaving the A41(T) at the Dome Roundabout limited the scope for developing effective bus priority measures on the St. Albans Road approaches to the junction. Conditions for cyclists were improved by permitting shared use of bus lanes, introducing several lengths of cycle lane and providing advance stop lines at several traffic signal controlled junctions. Ancillary measures included provision of loading bays and a small number of ’pay and display’ car parking spaces, footway resurfacing, improvements to pedestrian crossing points and replacement of pedestrian guard rail. Implementation date The scheme was implemented in three phases following an initial UTC upgrade in 1996. Phase 1 construction works began in January 1998; the following phases were opened in June 1998, November 1998 and August 1999. Selective detection of buses became operational in February 2000 and some further small-scale improvement works were also implemented at Station Road, Watford during 2000.

- 227 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Cost The overall cost of the scheme was £1.76 million (2000 prices). The total cost is broken down as follows: Activity Statutory undertakers diversions UTC upgrades (1996) Phase 1 construction (January to June 1998) Phase 2 construction (August to November 1998) Phase 3 construction (February to August 1999) Selective vehicle detection, active bus priority Cost (£million) 0.11 0.42 0.52 0.50 0.06 0.01

Post implementation modification (works at Station Road) 0.14 Total Source: Hertfordshire County Council In addition, Arriva expenditure on new easy access, low floor buses in the Watford area totalled £4.7 million in the period 1997 to 2000. This included the acquisition of 11 gas powered buses. Consultation A number of public exhibitions detailing proposals for the scheme were held in Autumn 1995. A leaflet was produced outlining proposals and inviting members of the public to the exhibitions; the leaflets were distributed to all households in the area. Comments on the proposals were collected using a questionnaire at the exhibitions. These comments were taken on board and changes were made to the proposals including shortening the bus lanes in places and toning down the parking restrictions. The second set of proposals were displayed in a second round of public exhibitions during February 1997; this coincided with advertising of the TROs. Bus operator The great majority of bus services on the St. Albans Road corridor are operated by Arriva The Shires and Essex. The operator was closely involved in development of the proposed scheme in accordance with the voluntary Quality Bus Partnership and made contributions through deployment of new low floor buses and by undertaking a bus user survey as a contribution to scheme monitoring. Bus frequency 1.76

- 228 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The A412 St. Albans Road Corridor in Watford carries the highest density of bus services of any road in Hertfordshire. During the weekday inter-peak period there are 16 buses per hour in each direction with additional journeys operating at peak times.

Before and after monitoring
Types and dates of surveys Extensive before and after monitoring has taken place to establish the impact of the Green Route project: automatic and manual classified traffic counts: manual counts in 1996 and 2000; bus journey time surveys (on-bus and roadside): 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999 (before) and June 2000 (after); car journey time surveys: 1994, 1999 and 2000; bus occupancy surveys: March 1996 and July 2000; perception survey of bus users: May/June 2000; and interview survey of local residents and postal questionnaire to properties fronting on to St. Albans Road: 2001.

Results
Traffic flows Analysis of automatic traffic count data for 1996 and 1999 indicates that traffic flows on the A412 St. Albans Road decreased by 11 per cent south of the A41(T) junction and by 6 per cent to the north of the junction. In the same period, traffic flow on the A4008 Stephenson Way increased by 20 per cent indicating the diversion of traffic from the A412 to the parallel A4008. In comparison, traffic in the Watford area grew by 5 per cent during the same time period. Manual traffic counts undertaken at a number of points along the A412 indicate an overall reduction of 14 per cent in weekday two-way traffic flow over a period of 12 hours. There was also a reduction of up to 15 per cent in traffic levels on side roads. Journey times Average southbound bus journey times on the southern part of the St. Albans Road Green Route between the A41(T) at the Dome Roundabout and Station Road, Watford decreased by 2.5 minutes (12 per cent) in the AM peak period between February 1996 and June 2000 but were unchanged in the inter-peak and PM peak periods. In the northbound direction the average journey time reduction over all three time periods was more than 1.5 minutes (17 per cent). Car journey times southbound between Garston and Watford Junction Station at the northern and southern ends of the Green Route increased by 7.5 minutes in the AM peak and 3.0 minutes in the inter-peak period between 1994 and 2000. There were no significant changes in car journey times southbound in the PM peak and northbound in all three time periods.

- 229 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Analysis of vehicle queuing counts indicates an overall increase in queuing at junctions on St. Albans Road between 1996 and 2000 reflecting the loss of stacking space following the introduction of bus lanes and pre signals. In developing the scheme it had been anticipated that increased queuing and car journey times on St. Albans Road would encourage general traffic to divert to the A4008 Stephenson Way. Reliability A survey of bus arrival times in Watford town centre undertaken by Arriva indicated an improvement of 65 per cent in bus reliability. Bus occupancy and modal share A comparison of bus occupancy in March 1996 and July 2000 showed increases in the number of people travelling by bus of 17 per cent in the AM peak, 18 per cent off-peak and 11 per cent in the PM peak. Bus mode share increased by 5 per cent in the same period. A comparison of 1999 and 2000 patronage data for two key bus services using St. Albans Road showed an increase of 1.8 per cent compared with a fall of 6.1 per cent on the remainder of the local network. Local opinion A bus passenger interview survey commissioned by Arriva in May 2000 included 387 completed interviews. The majority of respondents thought that buses were normally on time (67 per cent), bus journey time had stayed the same or improved since completion of the Green Route (82 per cent) and that the quality of passenger shelters had improved (53 per cent). Issues of concern to respondents included delays to buses at locations beyond the Green Route and the frequency of bus services using the corridor. Market research of the views of local businesses and occupiers of frontage properties indicated that improved access to shops, loading bays and parking facilities were the most positive elements of the Green Route project whilst the least satisfactory aspects were disruption to trade during construction and decrease in traffic speed. Air quality Emissions by buses were reduced as a result of investment by Arriva in new low floor diesel and gas-powered buses. The gas-powered buses were effective in reducing emissions but problems were encountered with fuel consumption and range on a full tank of fuel. Consequently, the fleet of gas buses has now been converted to operate on diesel fuel.

Conclusions
Hertfordshire County Council considers that the St. Albans Road Green Route has achieved its objectives of reducing bus journey times, improving reliability and increasing bus patronage and mode share. The strategic objective of displacing traffic onto a more suitable parallel route (A4008 Stephenson Way) has also been achieved without any increase in ’rat running’.

- 230 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

References
Green Route Scrutiny, Report by Transport Panel, Hertfordshire County Council, December 2001. St. Albans Road Green Route Project Before and After Report, Hertfordshire County Council, August 2000.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Hertfordshire County Council.

Other examples
Other examples can be found in this resource pack, including: Durham Road Super Route, Sunderland. Chepstow Road, Newport.

Further information
Further information on the St. Albans Road Green Route can be obtained from: Hertfordshire County Council Highways House 41-45 Broadwater Road Welwyn Garden City Herts AL10 8YD 01707 356560 http://www.hertsdirect.org

Bus gates and bus only links
Introduction
Bus gates and bus only links are short lengths of bus only street intended to allow buses to travel on direct routes that are prohibited to all other traffic. They are used to keep unwanted traffic out of an area whilst allowing the operation of a bus service on a direct route that is attractive to passengers. In its simplest form a bus gate or bus only link is a short section of road where a Traffic Regulation Order is in place restricting access to buses. Signs are the only protection against violation. In such cases, abuse of the restriction by other categories of traffic is common.

- 231 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Local authorities have adopted a variety of approaches to make bus gates more effective or self-enforcing. Measures used include application of a different colour or surface treatment to the gate, carriageway narrowing (sometimes complemented by traffic calming or a physical obstruction), and protection by bus-activated traffic signals or rising bollards. Bus gates or bus only links can be used in a variety of different situations: as part of a toolkit of measures used to restrict access for general traffic and allow buses to operate in town and city centres; to enable buses to bypass congested junctions; to allow buses to penetrate residential areas, industrial areas and business parks whilst preventing the route becoming an attractive short-cut for unwanted through traffic; and to maintain bus routes where a traffic management scheme has been implemented or a new road has been built.

Enforcement
Bus gates are particularly susceptible to violation unless measures are taken to make them less attractive to motorists and more self-enforcing. This can be done in a number of ways: by narrowing the carriageway in the bus gate to the minimum necessary to accommodate a bus; by installing traffic signals with bus detection; by installing rising bollards that are activated by transponders on buses (see case study of Bridge Street rising bollards, Cambridge); and by using a different colour or surface treatment for the bus gate or installing traffic calming (e.g. a speed cushion) in the gate (see case study of bus friendly traffic calming, Hull). In a few locations local authorities have utilised physical obstructions that can be crossed by buses, but not by cars, as an alternative to installing a speed cushion in a bus gate. The difficulty with a physical obstruction such as a sunken area in the middle of the carriageway is that it may preclude use of the bus gate by emergency vehicles, minibuses and some midibuses. The priority access point on Northgate Street in Bath City Centre was introduced by Bath and North East Somerset Council in 2001 with the objectives of reducing the volume of traffic in the city centre, providing an opportunity to improve public transport services, reducing noise and air pollution in the city centre, improving the pedestrian environment for city centre users and thereby encouraging investment in the central area. Alternative routes were available for displaced traffic - A367 Green Park/Charles Street and A36 Bathwick Street/Cleveland Place. The diagram below illustrates the strategic location of the bus gate. The priority access point takes the form of a short length of road with access controlled by a set of transponder-activated traffic signals. From initial implementation, the bus gate operated between 08.30 and 18.30 on all days of the week. This time period was chosen following consultation with the police, emergency services, city centre traders and bus operators. Following a review of the hours of operation, it is proposed to revise the hours to 10.00 to 18.00 during 2004/05 in order to ease constraints on servicing premises in the city centre.

- 232 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

This scheme is part of the city’s wider traffic management system that has been introduced with the aim of improving the environment in central Bath and creating a more pleasant area for all users. The priority access point is used by 14-15 southbound buses per hour in peak hours reducing to 12-13 buses per hour in the inter-peak. In addition the bus gate can be used by taxis, private hire vehicles, emergency vehicles and cycles. Monitoring has shown reduced bus journey times, increased reliability and reduced traffic levels on the streets leading to the priority access point of up to 70 per cent after implementation. Strathmore Street bus gate, Perth A with-flow bus lane and bus gate were installed on Strathmore Street in Perth in order to enable buses to bypass queuing traffic. The bus gate at the end of the bus lane is intended to allow buses to re-enter the traffic lane safely at a pinch point where the carriageway can accommodate only two lanes. Buses leaving the bus stop at the end of the bus lane trigger the traffic signals at the bus gate to create a gap in the traffic. A hurry call is also sent to downstream traffic signals. The downstream section of the route is heavily congested and the traffic signals at the bus gate can be used to control traffic flow. Limited localised carriageway widening was necessary over a length of 35 metres to enable construction of the bus gate. The maximum depth of widening was 2.0 metres. The scheme is one of several measures introduced in Perth to improve reliability on Stagecoach service 7. The combined effect of a doubling of daytime frequency, the introduction of new buses and the reliability benefits of bus priority has seen an increase of more than 50 per cent in patronage. Strathmore Street bus priority Strathmore Street bus priority Ilminster Road bus gate, Taunton The bus gate on Old Ilminster Road in Taunton has been in operation since 1996 and has brought significant journey time and distance savings for bus services travelling into the centre of Taunton. A plan is provided to illustrate the scheme and shows the new route taken by buses alongside the route used before the bus gate was installed. Before the installation of the bus gate in 1996, buses travelled the same route as general traffic, from the motorway junction and along the dual carriageway (A358) before entering the town centre, a journey of around 3 kilometres. Since the bus gate has been introduced buses now avoid congestion at junctions on this busy dual carriageway and as a result the journey distance has dropped to around 1.6 kilometres and saves around 15 minutes during peak hours. As the photo shows, the bus gate is enforced with a rising bollard, which is activated by transponders on the bus. Fire service vehicles can also use this bus gate; they are fitted with tags which are enabled by their emergency lights. The tag activates the bollard and allows them to pass through.

- 233 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Old Ilminster Road bus route Old Ilminster Road bus route Guided bus link, Kesgrave, Ipswich The Kesgrave guided busway on Superoute 66 in Ipswich is an example of a fully self-enforcing bus link. The purpose of the 200 metre length of guided busway is to allow buses to take a direct route between two neighbouring residential areas without providing a through route for cars avoiding main road traffic congestion. The route taken by the Superoute 66 service is shown on the above plan with the yellow line representing the guided bus link. By using this guided bus link around one and a half minutes is saved on each Superoute journey; selective vehicle detection (SVD) used at two junctions further along this route also helps to ensure that this service runs to schedule. Guided bus link, Kesgrave, Ipswich Superoute 66 The service also incorporates Real Time Passenger Information technology at some stops providing passengers with information about the next bus expected at the stop. The Superoute 66 has been a success and the frequency of the service has altered to reflect this. When the service started buses ran every 20 minutes, however, due to its success the service has been increased to operate on a 24-hour basis with the bus running at 15 minute intervals with a 10 minute frequency in the peak hours and hourly overnight. In addition vehicle type has been changed from short single-deck vehicles, through long single-deck buses to double-deck vehicles. Derriford Road, Plymouth Stage 2 of bus priority works in the Derriford Road area of Plymouth began in March 2004. The work, which incorporated the installation of a signal controlled bus gate, was completed in August 2004 as part of a wider package of bus priority measures which are in place on Derriford Road. The works carried out on Derriford Road have extended the existing bus lane and added new measures to encourage the use of bus over the private car. The installation of the most recent bus gate in this area is used as an example here. The bus gate was installed with the help of developer funding. It allows southbound buses travelling on the A386 access to Derriford Hospital without having to use Derriford roundabout. This means that buses can bypass busy sections of road and make journey time savings. The Derriford Road bus priority scheme The Derriford Road bus priority scheme

- 234 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Pemros Road, Plymouth The Pemros Road bus gate and bus only link in Plymouth have been in place for many years. The presence of the bus gate and bus only link prevents general traffic from using a road which goes through a residential area to get to the Tamar Bridge. The bus only link carries bus services wanting to cross the busy Tamar Bridge and allows them to travel easily avoiding general traffic congestion. The bus gate is open to taxis as well as buses and is enforced with a camera. The Tamar Bridge has also been fitted with a tagging system that detects buses travelling eastwards from Saltash and closes the toll lane barriers. This prevents general traffic travelling up the A38. While general traffic is being held, buses are then free to turn right from the left hand lane to reach the Pemros Road bus gate.

Conclusions
The bus gates and bus only links discussed have all been implemented as part of a wider package of bus priority measures which have had significant effects on either bus patronage or bus journey times. The examples used all show different technologies and enforcement measures which can be used when installing a bus gate with each of them having some success in their installation. The use of a bus gate or bus only link however, should be considered with regards to local conditions to ensure that they are appropriate. Consultation is also an important part of the process and should not be overlooked.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Bath and North East Somerset Council, Perth and Kinross Council, Somerset County Council, Suffolk County Council and Plymouth City Council.

Other examples
A number of examples of bus gates are to be found in case studies elsewhere in this resource pack: Leeds City Centre: A number of bus gates provide priority access for buses to the central area ’public transport box’ whilst encouraging other vehicles to use the ’city centre loop’ road to make cross-city trips; Oxford City Centre: Several bus gates have been installed to control access to the city centre public transport route as part of the Oxford Transport Strategy; and Cambridge City Centre: The Bridge Street bus gate in Cambridge is made self-enforcing by the use of rising bollards.

References
Guidelines for Planning for Public Transport in Developments, The Institution of Highways and Transportation, 1999.

- 235 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Local Transport Note 1/97 Keeping Buses Moving, 1997.

Further information
For further information on the case studies identified in this leaflet contact: Barbara Selby, Traffic and Transportation Manager (Transportation and Highways), Bath and North East Somerset Council on 01225 395386. Scott Denyer (Urban Traffic Control), Perth and Kinross Council on 01738 476517. Keith Jennings, Traffic Signals Manager, Somerset County Council on 01823 358233 or email: kpjennings@somerset.gov.uk Ian Gray, Transport Co-ordination Manager, Suffolk County Council on 01473 265049. Philip Heseltine, Senior Engineer (Transportation), Plymouth City Council on 01752 307942.

Rising bollards
Description of need
Background The Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme (CCTS) is an important part of the city’s overall transport strategy, developed to cut congestion in the centre. Both the local city plan and the county structure plan recognise the need to reduce traffic in the relatively compact central area, as this would improve safety, air quality and the general environment. CCTS involves restricting through traffic to the city centre at key entry points using rising bollards. Local buses, taxis and bicycles are exempt from the restrictions. Residents and businesses in the city centre were canvassed on which routes should be restricted, and they gave their strongest support to Bridge Street, just north of the city centre. Problems The main problem in Cambridge was perceived as the high traffic levels in a relatively compact city. This, in turn, resulted in a range of adverse impacts such as poor pedestrian safety, air quality concerns and delays to public transport. Objectives The overall objective of CCTS is to ’encourage greater use of walking, cycling and public transport and discourage dependency on the private motor car’. CCTS also meets both national and regional objectives on traffic reduction and improved air quality. The local objectives are to: stop cars driving into the city centre; maintain access to city centre properties; maintain public transport and cycle access; improve pedestrian safety; enhance the environment;

- 236 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

improve air quality; and achieve an overall improvement.

Scheme details
Description Traffic restraint via rising bollards acting as a bus gate. One side of Bridge Street is occupied by college buildings and the other is retail, mainly pubs and restaurants. Implementation date The closure scheme began on 22 January 1997. Costs Funding for the CCTS came from the Government as part of public transport allocations. £150,000 was spent on the experiment. Although maintenance is handled under a single contract covering all bollard systems in the city, annual maintenance costs have been estimated at £5,000. Consultation Stakeholders, residents and business within the central core area were consulted on the scheme. Public consultation in March 1998 followed the experimental introduction and showed good support. Bus operator Stagecoach Cambus. Bus frequency Park and ride services have a 10 minute frequency, as do many of the other services that run in Cambridge. More rural services operate on a lower frequency of 30 minutes to an hour.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys Cambridge City Council carried out monitoring surveys in both the summer and autumn of 1996, before implementing the scheme; ’after’ surveys were carried out in autumn 1997. Types of surveys

- 237 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The surveys looked at a range of variables, including: traffic flows; vehicle speeds; journey times; cycle and pedestrian flows; and air quality. The local authority chose monitoring sites on main roads where it could expect traffic flows to increase. Manual classified counts were carried out on main roads. These took place on both weekdays and Saturdays between 07.00 and 19.00. Peak hour traffic surveys were carried out elsewhere. Journey time surveys were carried out in both directions on the inner ring road during the morning and evening peaks and at off-peak times. Similar surveys were also carried out on four radial routes, which were either used by park and ride buses, or gave access to the north west of the city. The city council made the results of this extensive monitoring available in January 1998. The main findings are summarised below.

Results
Traffic flows The city’s radial routes and inner ring road showed collectively little change after the scheme was introduced. But some individual roads experienced increases in traffic, whilst others experienced decreases as a result of the scheme. On Bridge Street itself, traffic was physically prevented from entering, so obviously it was significantly reduced: by up to 85 per cent on weekdays. Evaluation of the scheme concluded that overall, ’significant traffic reductions have been achieved on the closure route without causing unexpected increases on other roads’. Journey times Journey time savings for general traffic showed a ’mixed bag’ of results. However, there was a general improvement on the inner ring during peak periods and deterioration in off peak journey times. The table below summarises changes to journey times. Summary of journey times on the ring road

- 238 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Clockwise AM Peak Off Peak PM Peak

BEFORE (min:sec) 18:17 17:24 41:49

AFTER (min:sec) 17:19 19:47 35:42

Anti-clockwise AM Peak Off Peak PM Peak

BEFORE (min:sec) 23:58 15:26 23:17

AFTER (min:sec) 18:51 17:10 25:18

(Data based on 85th percentile of journey time runs per time period) Air quality Cambridge City Council monitored nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels before and after implementation of the scheme. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the air pollutants most closely associated with traffic and is a useful indicator of traffic-related pollution. Air quality monitoring indicates that NO2 levels have improved or stayed the same at 16 out of 18 sites across the city centre. Air quality has only deteriorated at two sites. Overall, the scheme seems to have had a positive effect. System performance During the scheme’s early days, the number of hours that the bollards operated was disappointing. This was largely because unauthorised vehicles tried to get through the Bridge Street bollards immediately behind buses and taxis and, in doing so, damaged the bollards. The council improved the performance of the bollards by introducing flashing warning signs, changing the closure point layout and improving the detection system for unauthorised vehicles. The bollards now operate effectively for around 95 per cent of the time.

Conclusions
The rising bollards in Bridge Street have given significant priority to local buses, taxis and cyclists entering Cambridge city centre. Traffic flows have been significantly reduced on the closure route without causing an unexpected increase in traffic on other roads. The scheme has also improved local air quality.

References
Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge Core Traffic Scheme: Stage 1 - Bridge Street Experimental Road Closure, Environment and Transport Committee, 1998.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the help of the Environment and Transport Department at Cambridgeshire County Council. For further information contact the Cambridge Project Team on: 01223 717780.

- 239 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Other examples
Stonebow, York Contact The City of York Council, Network Management Section (Traffic unit) on: 01904 613161 ext: 1450. High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire Contact Buckingham County Council for more details: wycombe@buckscc.gov.uk or the Wycombe Area Office on: 01494 475315.

Further information
Assistance with the implementation of rising bollards is offered in the following document ⢠Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/97, Rising Bollards, DETR, April 1997. DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. The Local Authority Rising Bollard User Group (LARBUG) intends to publish advice on the use of rising bollards in due course.

Guided busways
Description of need
Background The A641 Manchester Road in Bradford is the main route south from the city centre to the M606 motorway and the towns of Brighouse and Huddersfield. Before the guided bus scheme, there was no priority for buses on the Bradford section of this corridor. Traffic congestion meant long journey times and poor reliability. In 1998, the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (MDC), West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Metro) and bus operator First commissioned two studies. These recommended the development of a guided bus scheme as part of the South Bradford Quality Bus initiative. This would give Manchester Road a high level of bus priority. City of Bradford MDC, Metro and First formed a public/private sector partnership to develop a guided bus scheme. They refined their proposals in 1999, so the final scheme consisted of a mix of guided busway, with-flow bus lanes and priority at signal controlled junctions. Construction began in November 2000 and the scheme opened in February 2002. Map of the Bradford area Problems

- 240 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Before the guided busway opened, congestion delayed buses in both directions during peak hours. Timetables included an additional 10 minutes to allow for delays. Congestion on Manchester Road affected the reliability of cross-city services on the Shipley and Leeds corridors. Surveys in 1998 - 99 highlighted reliability and punctuality as bus users’ greatest concerns. Motorists also identified reliability and punctuality of buses as the most important factor influencing their willingness to switch to bus. The city council was concerned about the way that the dual carriageway cut South Bradford in two for pedestrians, forcing them to rely on footbridges and subways. Objectives The scheme aimed to: ⢠improve bus reliability; ⢠reduce bus journey times; ⢠increase passenger confidence; and ⢠encourage motorists to switch to the bus.

Scheme details
Description The guided busway required the reallocation of 2.3 kilometres of road space on the dual carriageway’s central reservation. The scheme also involved the introduction of conventional near-side with-flow bus lanes for 1.1 kilometres of the route. These are available to buses and cyclists. In some places the number of lanes available for general traffic was cut from three to two in each direction. The objective was to provide two lanes for through traffic over the full length of the scheme. Three lanes were retained at junctions to cater for turning traffic. The speed limit was also lowered from 40 to 30 mph. The City Council installed signal-controlled pedestrian crossings at 11 locations to serve bus stops on the central guided busway and at kerbside bus stops. These additional crossings greatly improved pedestrian links between communities on opposite sides of Manchester Road. The Council also raised the kerb at stops on Manchester Road and elsewhere along the corridor to give close and level boarding. New bus shelters were also part of the scheme, including three landmark ’super shelters’. These are three times the size of normal shelters and fitted with wind turbines to power heated seats or an information display. As well as helping to pay for some of the infrastructure, First also provided new, accessible, low sulphur emission buses. They trained drivers to a higher standard in customer care and introduced a ’customer promise’ to guarantee service standards. Construction work was close enough to completion to allow driver training to begin in July 2001. Services began to operate along the guided busway on 31 January 2002.

- 241 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Costs The scheme cost £12 million at 2001 prices, including the cost of the new buses. Highway works cost £4.7 million, noise insulation £600,000 and diversions to statutory services £1 million. Consultation In summer 1999, the city council delivered a colour leaflet explaining the scheme to properties along the corridor. The leaflet included a short post-paid questionnaire. The council exhibited detailed plans at two locations in Bradford city centre and on a bus ’roadshow’ at a supermarket close to the corridor. Council officers answered questions on the scheme at a number of Neighbourhood Forums. Eight newsletters were issued to provide information on progress and explain the impact of construction works on traffic. Bus operators First in Bradford provides the majority of bus services on Manchester Road, including all those on the guided busway. Two Arriva Yorkshire services operate along sections of Manchester Road, but do not use any of the guided busways. Bus frequency During daytime on Mondays to Fridays there are 22 buses an hour in each direction on Manchester Road between Odsal and Bradford city centre.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys ’Before’ data was collected in May and June 2000. ’After’ surveys took place in May and June 2002. Types of surveys The ’before’ and ’after’ monitoring programme consisted of: car and bus journey time registration surveys; bus occupancy counts; automatic traffic counts; and manual classified traffic counts. A survey of attitudes among 240 bus passengers carried out in April 2002 showed that over 60 per cent ranked the service as good or very good on a range of 16 indicators.

- 242 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Results
City of Bradford MDC has produced a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of the scheme. Here is a summary of the results. Traffic flows The principal finding was a clear fall in peak traffic using Manchester Road. Inbound traffic on Manchester Road fell by 14 per cent in the morning peak (07.30 to 09.30) and 13 per cent in the evening peak (16.00 to 18.00). Outbound traffic on Manchester Road fell by 17 per cent in the morning peak (07.30 to 09.30) and 7 per cent in the evening peak (16.00 to 18.00). The effect was not restricted to peak periods. Total weekday traffic using Manchester Road fell by about 11 per cent, mostly switching to other routes in and out of the city. Total inbound traffic on six radial routes to the south of the city centre including Manchester Road reduced by 6 per cent in the morning peak and 9 per cent in the evening peak. Total outbound traffic on the six radial routes fell by 4 per cent in the morning peak, but increased by 3 per cent in the evening peak. There is evidence that some traffic switched to other routes: into the city centre via Wakefield Road and outbound via both Little Horton Lane and Wakefield Road. Journey times The installation of 11 new signal-controlled pedestrian crossings was an essential component of the scheme but had an adverse effect on bus and car journey times. Inbound Scheduled bus journey time between Odsal Top and Bradford Interchange is 15 minutes in the morning peak and 13 minutes at other times. The express bus service is about three minutes quicker. Average journey times for inbound stopping bus services reduced by one minute in the morning peak period (7 per cent), but journey times for the express service did not improve. In the morning peak hour the average time saving increased to two minutes (13 per cent). Inbound car journey times increased in both periods by between one and two minutes. Before the scheme began, peak inbound car journeys were five minutes faster than stopping bus services and similar to express bus times. After implementation, inbound car journeys took as long as stopping buses and the average express bus was three minutes faster than the car. In the morning inter-peak period, journey times increased for both buses and cars. The net effect was to increase the difference in journey times between stopping buses and cars from four to five minutes. In the morning peak, the scheme improved bus reliability by reducing variability in express and stopping bus journey times. At the same time, variability in journey times by car increased.

- 243 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Outbound Scheduled bus journey time between Bradford Interchange and Odsal Top is 14 minutes in the evening peak and 12 minutes at other times. The express bus service is about three minutes quicker. Average journey times for outbound stopping services fell by more than one minute in the evening peak period (10 per cent) and by more than two minutes (16 per cent) in the evening peak hour. The express service achieved a slightly greater improvement, whereas average outbound car journey times were largely unchanged. Variability in bus and car journey times declined in the evening peak period. There were insubstantial changes to average times for outbound buses and cars in the inter-peak. Differences between journey times by car and bus have been reduced. However, stopping buses remain more than two minutes slower in the peak and five minutes slower in the inter-peak. Although there is no direct evidence, the new signal controlled pedestrian crossings and speed limit changes are likely to have increased journey times for all forms of transport. Bus patronage In August 2001, First launched its ’Overground’ network in Bradford. This boosted bus use and made comparison of the ’before’ and ’after’ figures difficult. The analysis was based on electronic ticket machine (ETM) data and on bus occupancy counts. The number of passengers boarding buses on the length of the corridor directly affected by the scheme between Odsal and the city centre grew by between 7 and 10 per cent: more than on other corridors into Bradford. Both data sources indicate modest growth in the morning peak and inter-peak periods. There was growth of about 20 per cent in the afternoon inter-peak and of 10 per cent in the evening peak. Reduced delays Most inbound time savings in the morning peak hour were achieved in two locations on the corridor. These were the guided busway approach to the Mayo Avenue junction, where one minute was saved, and the right turn into Croft Street at the ’city’ end of the corridor, which saved 30 seconds. Together these accounted for 10 per cent of scheduled bus journey time between Odsal Top and Bradford Interchange. The majority of outbound evening peak time savings were achieved by the guided busway north of Mayo Avenue on the approach to the Mayo Avenue roundabout, with a saving of one and a half minutes or 12 per cent of scheduled bus running time from the city centre to Odsal Top.

Conclusions
Implementation of the Manchester Road guided busway scheme as part of the South Bradford Quality Bus Initiative resulted in increased bus patronage, reduced delays to buses, reduced peak bus journey times and reduced peak traffic flows.

- 244 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Acknowledgements
This was produced with the assistance of City of Bradford MDC, Metro and First. Further information can be obtained from the City of Bradford MDC Transportation, Design and Planning Department on: 01274 437418. Other examples A61 Scott Hall Road Corridor, Leeds. Contact Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department on: 0113 247 7500. A64 York Road / A63 Selby Road, Leeds. Contact Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department on: 0113 247 7500. Kesgrave Connection, Ipswich. Contact Suffolk County Council, Environment and Transport on: 01473 583305. Fastway (Crawley/Gatwick/Horley) phased opening Summer 2003 to Summer 2005. Contact West Sussex Highways and Transport Department on: 01243 777273. Alternatively, information can be obtained from the following web site: www.fastway.info/

Further information
The Transport and Works Act provides guidance on the need for an Order. The Transport and Works Act was not used for the Bradford scheme. However, as all the works were within the highway boundary, it was possible to rely on Traffic Regulation Orders for authorisation. There is no formal published design guidance for guided busways. The Buses and Taxis Division of the Department of Transport issued a Briefing Note on Guided Buses in 1995 and numerous articles have appeared in the technical press. The following documents may also be of interest: Daugherty GG and Balcombe RJ, Leeds Guided Bus way Study, Transport Research Laboratory, 1999. DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997.

Pre signals and bus advance areas
Bus priority at traffic signals, whilst maintaining junction capacity, is often a contentious issue. The use of pre signals or bus advance areas is an emerging bus priority measure, which has proved successful at various locations around the UK. Traditionally, the end of a bus lane has been set back a short distance from a junction to enable buses to move between lanes, to cater for left turning traffic and allow for the maximum throughput of all vehicles through the junction. This traditional arrangement is shown below.

- 245 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Traditional bus lane set back
Traditional bus lane set back Traditional bus lane set back Pre signals work by holding general traffic at traffic signals set back a short distance from the junction, usually at the end of a designated bus lane. This creates a bus advance area where, while general traffic is held back at these signals, buses are given a green signal allowing them to proceed to the main junction and take whichever lane they need. Pre signals placed at the end of a bus lane also allow buses to bypass queues and have priority at main junctions.

Pre signals junction layout
Pre signals junction layout Pre signals junction layout To ensure junction capacity loss is minimised, pre signals are synchronised with the main signals. This means that traffic is released from the pre signals just before the main signals turn green ensuring that full use is made of the green signal. The use of vehicle detection technologies at pre signals is also an option for minimising delays to general traffic in the absence of vehicles in the bus lane. This kind of system would stop general traffic at the pre signals only if a bus was approaching.

Advantages of pre signals over unsignalled setbacks
The two main advantages are as follows: prevents abuse of the bus lane; and useful where buses need to weave into an outside lane to turn right.

Disadvantages of pre signals
There are a number of disadvantages associated with the use of pre signals: bus delays off-peak; buses that arrive during vehicle green may have a choice between using the traffic lane and getting green or using the pre signal and waiting a cycle; a bus stop in the wrong place may make it hard to achieve benefit i.e. if a bus stop is placed just before the signals then it is not possible to avoid the bus stopping at a red signal; and pedestrians may be tempted to cross in the wrong place if there are signals and an island in place. Some of the above disadvantages can, however, be overcome with good design and vehicle detection.

- 246 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Types of bus pre signals
The University of Southampton’s Transport Research Group have identified three main categories of pre signals that can be used to provide priority to buses at busy junctions: Category A Category A pre signals are described as those where buses are not controlled by a pre signal, whereas general traffic is. This means that while traffic is held at the pre signals, buses can proceed straight to the main junction uncontrolled. However when the general traffic has a green signal, buses will have to give way to the main traffic flow. Category B With category B pre signals buses are controlled in the same way as general traffic, so buses have priority when general traffic is held at a red pre signal and vice versa. Category C Category C pre signals are defined as those that use vehicle detection to activate the pre signals and give priority to approaching buses. This would mean that delays to general traffic may be minimised as they are only stopped if an approaching bus is detected. Once a bus is detected and the general traffic has been stopped at the pre signals, the bus can then proceed to the main junction without delay.

Bus advance areas at roundabouts
Bus priority at roundabouts can be given through creating bus advance areas incorporating pre signals before the give way line at the entry point to the roundabout. As with pre signals, general traffic is held at the end of a bus lane by pre signals while buses can proceed to the roundabout give way line without delay. This system gives buses time to position themselves in the correct lane to complete their required manoeuvre when entering the roundabout. The type of pre signals that may be used in any particular area are subject to local conditions as not all categories are suitable in all situations. The cost implications and available technologies need to be considered as part of a package of bus priority measures. The following case studies provide examples of different pre signals schemes, differing in technology and complexity.

Case study: Shepherd’s Bush
This is an early example of the use of pre signals as part of a package of bus priority measures aimed at reducing congestion and the negative environmental impact of heavy traffic flows. Pre signals were installed in 1993 at the end of a 24-hour bus lane on the south side of Shepherd’s Bush Common. These signals stop general traffic and allow buses to carry on to the main junction and position themselves in the correct lane. This is particularly useful for buses needing to make a right turn at the main signals. When the pre signals are red, buses are free to move ahead of the general traffic. However, once the pre signal is green any buses emerging from the bus lane will have to give way to the main traffic

- 247 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

flow. The timing of the pre signals is such that general traffic is released shortly before the main signal turns green and return to red just before the main signal to ensure that the bus advance area is clear for the buses during the next cycle. A study carried out by TRL involved before and after surveys of the scheme to identify the effects of the overall package of measures on buses travelling through Shepherd’s Bush. Shepherd’s Bush bus priority measures. Shepherd’s Bush bus priority measures. Reproduced with the permission from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham The previous diagram shows the area and the bus priority measures implemented in 1993. The results of the before and after surveys carried out by TRL are given in the table below. It shows changes in bus journey times (seconds) for buses travelling between points A and B on the above diagram, incorporating both the bus lane and pre signals. The results of the before and after surveys carried out by TRL The results show a considerable reduction in journey times for buses along this stretch after the implementation of the bus priority measures. It is not possible to attribute a specific time saving to the pre signals as the timesavings are as a result of a combination of measures, however, it is considered that the pre signals do contribute considerably.

Case study: York
Hull Road pre signals Inbound pre signals, Hull Road, York Hull Road pre signals Inbound pre signals, Hull Road, York As a Centre of Excellence for Integrated Transport Planning, the City of York has a range of bus priority measures in place to reduce bus journey times. Pre signals are one of the measures used to achieve this. Pre signals on A1079 Hull Road were introduced in 1997 as part of a package of measures linked to the opening of a park and ride site at Grimston Bar. These signals were installed to give priority to buses at the end of a bus lane, allowing them to re-enter the carriageway where it is reduced from a double to a single carriageway on the way into the city centre. The pre signals here are connected to the city’s UTC system and can be used to regulate traffic flow and ease congestion on this busy route by holding the pre signals on green for buses. This therefore acts as a queue management system. The bus priority measures on this stretch of road have had a positive impact on bus journey times. On the Grimston Bar park and ride route for example, buses have a peak hour advantage of between 4 and 12 minutes over cars as a result of the package of priority measures. This facility has the potential to be used as a gate to hold traffic out of the more congested parts of the A1079 into the city. This facility is used at

- 248 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

inbound peak times. The overall effect on car traffic should be negligible, as the increase in delay at the pre signals should be offset by the increased efficiency at the signalised junctions upstream.

Case study: Perth
In 2000, a number of bus priority measures were installed as part of corridor improvements on the Stagecoach route number 7 in Perth. These improvements included the installation of bus lanes, bus only streets and selective vehicle detection (SVD) at traffic signals. Pre signals were installed on Glasgow Road bus lane to allow buses to bypass queuing traffic on this busy road. The pre signals enable buses to re-enter the general traffic flow at the end of the bus lane and also controls access to the bus advance area at the main signals. Glasgow Road pre signals Glasgow Road pre signals. Reproduced with the permission from Perth and Kinross Council Buses leaving the bus stop near the bottom of the bus lane are detected through SVD technology and the pre signals are triggered stopping general traffic and allowing buses to enter the bus advance area. Bus reliability has improved and patronage has increased by over 50 per cent due to the introduction of these measures and the new and improved bus services. This scheme has been further developed and the extension of the bus lane is an ongoing project.

Case study: Leeds
The East Leeds Quality Bus Initiative incorporates the use of pre signals with a guided busway to give priority to buses approaching the city centre along the A64. The guided bus scheme involves a central reservation bus guideway between two busy signalised junctions on the inbound route which brings buses into conflict with general traffic when they cross from the central reservation to the general traffic flow and then cross back over again to a bus lane. Pre signals are used here to facilitate this cross over and ensure the safety of all road users. Being signals associated with a bus guideway, special white ’arrow’ aspects were authorised by DfT to replace the normal green aspects for buses. General traffic along this route is stopped only at the pre signals, to give buses priority, and not at the main signals further along the route with which the pre signals are coordinated. This is sensible from a safety point of view as this is a busy 40 mph road and it would be less safe to have a number of unexpected signal changes. A64 Pre signals A64 Pre signals The signals here are coordinated by SPRUCE, a software based Bus and Tram Priority tool that was developed by Leeds City Council as part of a Government sponsored initiative. This system works within the city’s UTC system and allows for the selective detection of priority vehicles. Once a priority vehicle has been detected approaching a junction, SPRUCE adjusts the fixed time signal cycle to allow the bus to pass through the junction and then returns to the fixed time cycle. This is achieved by using different

- 249 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

strategies depending on the bus arrival time. The use of SPRUCE gives an advantage to buses at all times of day, but it is particularly advantageous in off-peak hours when it might otherwise be quicker for buses to use the general traffic lanes. The average delay to buses in the off-peak, resulting from this signal priority, was reduced from 32 seconds to 8 seconds. It has been noted that the use of dynamic priority (using priority vehicle detection to alter signal timings) can be far preferable to static priority (timings not responsive at all times of day), because buses can more often be granted higher priority with less effect on general traffic. Pre signals are used in other areas of Leeds, for example they are used at the end of the A647 Stanningley Road High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, which is used as the case study for the HOV leaflet.

References
High performance bus/tram signal priority, JCT Symposium 2004. Local Transport Note 1/97 Keeping Buses Moving, 1997. Miscellaneous Bus Priority System Investigations, Final Report to the Traffic Control Systems Unit Corporation of London, Transportation Research Group, University of Southampton, 1995. Performance of Bus Priority Measures in Shepherds Bush, TRL Report 140, 1995. Wu, J and Hounsell, NB, Bus Priority Using Pre-Signals, University of Southampton, 1998.

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgement is given for the assistance provided by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, City of York Council, Perth and Kinross Council and Leeds City Council.

Further information
For further information on the case studies contained in this leaflet contact: Mike Gilroy, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham on 020 8753 3050 (Shepherd’s Bush). Darren Capes (Network Management), City of York Council on 01904 551651. Scott Denyer (Urban Traffic Control) Perth and Kinross Council on 01738 476517. Mervyn Hallworth (Urban Traffic Management & Control), Leeds City Council on 0113 2476750 or Mervyn.Hallworth@Leeds.gov.uk

Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD)

- 250 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Background
Bus operation is becoming more sophisticated. Methods of providing priority to buses at traffic signals have been available at isolated junctions for many years; one of the first trials was in Swansea in the late 1970s. More recently, priority to individual vehicles has been provided for coordinated traffic signal control in SCOOT, a control strategy for traffic signals in urban areas. Bus management systems allow operators to track and monitor their buses against the timetable or scheduled headway. Information from the systems can be provided to the public in the form of real time passenger information, through various means: bus stop displays; SMS messages to individual subscribers; and web sites etc. Such sophisticated systems provide opportunities for better services to the travelling public. In the case of bus priority systems, as well as reducing passengers’ travel times, the quicker bus journeys may lead to operational savings for the operator or the ability to increase service frequencies with the same number of vehicles. This leaflet describes the technologies that are available to enable bus priority and bus management and information systems.

Bus location
To provide priority at traffic signals to individual vehicles, the controller needs to know that the vehicle is approaching the signals. Usually the selected individual vehicles will be buses, but other vehicles such as trams and emergency vehicles also require priority at traffic signals. Similarly, real time passenger information systems need to know the location of vehicles. There are two basic ways of providing the information about vehicle location: 1. Selectively detect vehicles at particular points on the road network, often requiring communication between equipment on the vehicle and at the roadside. 2. The vehicle has an on-board means of locating its position and reports it to a vehicle management system. The first method is commonly referred to as Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD), and the second as Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). The objective of SVD and AVL systems is to provide vehicle location information as required by the bus priority and bus management and information systems that are in use. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages.

SVD technologies
There are several technologies that can provide selective vehicle detection:

- 251 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

long vehicle inductive loops; vehicle inductive loop detector signal processing; video image processing; infra-red transmitter and receiver; microwave transmitter and receiver; and inductive loop and transponder. The first three methods are all passive; there is no active participation in the detection process by the vehicle or equipment on it. Passive detection is attractive as it eliminates the need to equip a large fleet of vehicles. The first method using long loops can be made to detect full-size buses reliably, but it will detect other long vehicles and will not detect smaller buses. Historically the method has been rejected on these grounds. In mixed traffic, two new intelligent vehicle detectors PRISM and FOOTPRINT, work by processing the signal from an inductive loop detector to recognise a specific vehicle. The technology is suitable for giving the same level of priority to all vehicles of the same type, but it cannot provide different levels of priority to a particular bus, for example - only to late-running buses. It also cannot provide information on individual vehicles for information and management purposes. The technique would be particularly appropriate at isolated bus only facilities, such as the entrance or exit of a park and ride site, where the expense of on-vehicle equipment on all buses that might be used on the service would be hard to justify for use at a very few sites. No independent verification of the performance of the detectors is known. Video image processing would require considerable development to provide a reliable system to work under all urban conditions. No-one has so far undertaken the necessary investment to develop a commercial system for bus detection in urban areas. Infra-red equipment is allowed to transmit continuously as it is not subject to radio transmission regulations and a transmitter on a bus could continuously transmit its presence to be detected by suitable roadside receivers. Unfortunately, the infra-red communication requires line-of sight transmission and a study in London in the 1980s concluded that to provide reliable detection would require many high mounted receivers. The cost of regularly cleaning them, to maintain reliable operation, would be prohibitive because of the difficulty of access. Infra-red detectors are used in North America for both bus priority and signal pre-emption for emergency vehicles, where a high degree of priority is required, however there has been considerable disquiet recently about the use of un-encoded infra-red and the sale to private motorists of signal pre-emption transmitters. Microwave transmitters and receivers have similar problems with mounting to avoid obscuration; this system can also be problematic as mobile microwave equipment is not allowed to transmit continuously. The bus equipment would, therefore, have to be a transponder and only transmit in response to a signal from the roadside. Vehicle mounted transponders that work with inductive loops have been available for a long time; but as with all loop detectors, the loop and feeder are susceptible to damage. Despite the vulnerability of the loops, inductive loop transponder systems are the SVD technology used in the majority of bus priority networks in the UK. Self contained transponders with a unique ID number do not need connecting to the

- 252 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

vehicle electrical system and so are quick and cheap to install. To obtain information about the service that the vehicle is running on, however, requires connection to the vehicle systems, usually the electronic ticketing machine. Both types are available.

AVL technologies
The technologies available for in-vehicle units in AVL systems are: Global Positioning System (GPS) General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Fixed reference points Odometer (milometer) Door open and close indicator Many of the commercial AVL systems currently operational in the UK use GPS for their location. A GPS tracking device on the bus communicates by private mobile radio to the central system and a link to the electronic ticketing machine can provide additional information on the current route. However, until 2000, accuracy of the positioning without correction of the deliberate error in the system was a problem. The error has since been removed and commercial GPS is now accurate to ± 3 metres. Where GPS reception is poor, it may be supplemented with a reading from the odometer. In addition, it is possible to take an input from the door operating mechanism to indicate when a bus has arrived at a stop and when it has left it. For bus priority, a second communication channel is usually provided for direct transmission of bus priority requests to traffic signal controllers. Global Packet Radio Service (GPRS) is a wireless communication service for data using the mobile phone network. It is used alongside GPS technology to provide accurate vehicle location data and instant communication between the vehicle and the real time information system, by allowing faster access to bus service information. AVL systems can also use fixed reference points, such as bus stop indicators or special beacons, route maps and dead reckoning from the odometer. The complexity of the system will be reflected in the cost of the system.

Requirements for bus priority
The basic requirement for bus priority is that the location system should provide accurate information when a bus is at the specified point where bus priority is requested. This point will normally be 10 to 15 seconds bus journey time before the junction, unless there is an intermediate bus stop. Where there is a bus stop close to the junction, the priority request point will be immediately after that bus stop. If the location is subject to error, then the priority request point will have to be moved sufficiently downstream of the bus stop to ensure that the bus will actually have left the stop when the AVL says that it is at the priority request point. The benefits of the bus priority will be degraded if the priority request point has to be moved too close to the junction.

- 253 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Requirements for bus management and information
Locational information is required at a sufficient frequency to provide good bus management and passenger information. The exact requirement will depend on the user, but the minimum is likely to be arrival and/or departure from each bus stop to an accuracy of better than one minute.

Capabilities of SVD and AVL
Capabilities of SVD and AVL Common disadvantages The main disadvantage of any system that uses on-bus equipment is that operators move buses between routes, between towns and between regions. If different highway authorities use different systems, the SVD or AVL equipment on a bus may not be compatible with the system to which the bus has been re-assigned. This can also be a particular problem with longer distance inter-urban services that cross one or more highway authority boundary. Problems of inter-operability are being addressed for AVL. When a standard is produced it will be important to follow it.

Applications
The bus priority case study on non AVL Bus SCOOT in this series gives a good example of the application of SVD. Similarly the case study on Bus SCOOT with AVL in Cardiff provides an example of the use of AVL technology. Another good example is the system started in Brighton in 2001. This is a joint project between Brighton & Hove Bus Company, who run 250 buses, and Brighton & Hove City Council, and was the first in the UK to equip an entire fleet, rather than just selected routes. The system uses a combination of the odometer reading and the door mechanism, supplemented by GPS to ensure the accuracy of information relayed to the 100 real time signs throughout the City. The benefit for the Bus Company’s controllers in being able to see the location of every bus has been enormous; they can now make much more informed decisions about maintaining service frequencies during traffic delays. Messages can be sent to the real time information signs to inform passengers about traffic problems, and this is regularly used to very good effect. The system stores historic data which compares how buses performed in reality compared with their timetable; this enables timetables to be adjusted to further improve reliability. The City Council is now building on the system; a website showing real time bus information will be in operation this autumn and a real time mobile phone text messaging service will begin in early 2005.

Useful sources of information
Bowen, GT, Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 255, Crowthorne, 1997.

- 254 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus passenger information system in London: www.transportforlondon.gov.uk Chandler, MJH and Cook, DJ, Traffic control studies in London: SCOOT and bus detection, 13th PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, PTRC Education and Research Services, July 1985. Cooper, BR, Vincent, RA and Wood, K, Bus-actuated traffic signals - initial assessment of part of the Swansea bus priority scheme, TRL Laboratory Report LR925, Crowthorne, 1980. Hill, R, Maxwell, A and Bretherton, D, Real time passenger information and bus priority in Cardiff: bus priority trial, Proceedings of the AET European Transport Conference, PTRC Education and Research Services, 2001. Review of current data requirements and detector technologies and the implications for UTMC. Deliverable 2 from the UTMC26 project: Increasing the value of road and roadside detectors. Available from: http://www.utmc.gov.uk/utmc26/pdf/d2v9d.pdf Testing of Different Bus Detectors for Traffic Signal Priority in Helsinki: www.hel.fi/ksv/entire/repBusDetectors.htm Use of TIRIS transponders for bus priority: http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/primavera/tiris.html

MOVA Description of need
Background MOVA stands for Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation. It is a signal control strategy that alters traffic signal timings in response to actual traffic conditions at isolated junctions. Inductive loops on the approach to the signals allow MOVA to allocate the optimum green time to the different traffic movements. The system can be programmed to reduce the waiting time of the priority vehicle. MOVA is used by almost all authorities having responsibility for traffic signals and it is a requirement on new signal installations and major refurbishment of trunk roads. Approximately 600 junctions in the UK use MOVA and the installation rate is over 100 per year. Emergency and priority vehicle signal control is implemented fully within MOVA. The trials at Winchester were carried out as part of the MOVA Developments project, carried out by TRL Limited under contract to the Traffic Management Division of the DfT. Problems The park and ride car park site is located off a busy road fed from the nearby M3 motorway exit. Additional traffic as a result of the park and ride site has caused congestion in the vicinity of the junction and caused delay to the buses.

- 255 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Objectives The main objective of the scheme is to reduce delays to park and ride buses whilst keeping delays to general traffic to a minimum.

Scheme details
Description MOVA Bus Priority was implemented by using Selective Vehicle Detectors (SVDs) of the long loop type which distinguish buses from most other vehicles. Implementation date September 1997. Cost £5,000 including the MOVA control unit and labour for cutting the detector loops. Consultation The DfT initiated the project with TRL to implement bus priority using MOVA. TRL consulted with a number of authorities to find suitable sites and Hampshire County Council identified Bar End Road as a possibility. Hampshire County Council agreed to fit MOVA at the site and for TRL to carry out the study. Bus operator Stagecoach. Bus frequency Average bus frequency is approximately every 7½ minutes.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys Before and after surveys were carried out during 1997. Types of surveys Journey times of buses travelling through the junction were recorded over a two day period, both with and without the priority control operating for comparative purposes. Bus arrival and departure times were recorded at the Bar End Road approaches and exits.

- 256 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Results
Results Traffic flows No change in traffic flows occurred with the introduction of the MOVA Bus Priority scheme. Journey times The best result occurred in the morning peak when bus delays were reduced by 24.1 seconds (a 54 per cent benefit), with smaller but still significant benefits at other times. System performance Over all the sites assessed in the project, Bus Priority within MOVA has been shown to work effectively without necessarily introducing major delays to other traffic. At Bar End Road the results were considered to be good. However, benefits at other locations will depend on specific site characteristics, particularly the position of bus stops in relation to the junction and whether or not conflicting signal stages have bus routes with high bus flows. Possible scheme amendments The Park and ride scheme is being extended to involve another junction and MOVA will be replaced by an extension to the Urban Traffic Control system.

Conclusions
The scheme has been operating very successfully for over two years proving that, in certain circumstances, MOVA Bus Priority offers features needed both to give priority to buses and to prevent excessive disruption to other traffic.

References
Vincent, RA, MOVA Developments: Final Report, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PR/TT/001/99, Crowthorne, 1999.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of the MOVA Development Group and Mr A Gray of the Environment Department of Hampshire County Council, who arranged for the installation and operation of the trial bus priority site at Bar End Road.

Other examples
Hanworth, South West London Contact the traffic team on: traffic@hounslow.gov.uk Merton, South London

- 257 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Contact Transport Services (Environmental Services Department) on: 020 8545 4794.

Further information
Department for Transport, Highways Agency, Installation Guide for MOVA, MCH 1542 Issue C, May 2003.

Bus SCOOT
Description of need
Background The ’split cycle offset optimisation technique’ - or SCOOT - is an urban traffic control (UTC) system. The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) developed SCOOT in collaboration with UK traffic system suppliers. Today, TRL, Peek Traffic and Siemens Traffic Control jointly own SCOOT. SCOOT responds automatically to traffic fluctuations, so expensive signal plans are unnecessary. This makes SCOOT an efficient tool for managing traffic on roads that use traffic signals. Over 170 towns and cities in the UK now use SCOOT. Bus SCOOT is a facility incorporated into SCOOT to give priority to buses. To use Bus SCOOT an authority must install devices for letting SCOOT know where the buses are e.g. loops or detectors. The Uxbridge Road is a strategically significant radial road running from Uxbridge town centre to Shepherds Bush in west London. It is 22km long and runs through three London boroughs. A bus route runs the entire length of the Uxbridge Road in two overlapping sections, and there is also a limited stop express route. At peak times there are over 20 buses an hour in each direction on these two routes, and over 60,000 people travel on them every day. Problems The Uxbridge Road suffers from severe traffic congestion throughout its length. Physical bus priority measures were introduced as part of a demonstration project from 1993 to 1996. These measures gave a four minute reduction in bus journey times. Bus patronage also increased considerably during this time period. However buses still suffered delays from traffic signals, and therefore further measures were needed to alleviate this. Objectives The Uxbridge Road scheme was part of the London field trials, which also included schemes for Twickenham and Edgware Road. The trials aimed to evaluate a number of integrated strategies at the three test sites. London Buses initiated the scheme with the Traffic Control Systems Unit (TCSU): now Traffic Technology Systems (TTS) of Transport for London. The Transportation Research Group, the University of Southampton and TRL Limited subsequently joined the study.

- 258 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Scheme details
Description The scheme tested was Bus SCOOT (as incorporated in SCOOT 4.1), running on the Uxbridge Road. It did not use automatic vehicle location (AVL). Implementation date The scheme was introduced in 1998. Costs The estimated cost of the scheme is £80,000 a year. It has the potential to save £200,000 a year. Consultation As these were field trials, a public consultation exercise was not carried out. Bus operators London Buses operates services along the Uxbridge Road. Bus frequency An average of 23 buses an hour run along the route.

Illustration of scheme
Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys On-street trials were carried out on the Uxbridge Road over a five week period in May and June 1998. Types of surveys The trials tested the following strategies for one week each: SCOOT; Bus SCOOT with extensions only; Bus SCOOT with extensions and low degree of saturation recall; and Bus SCOOT with extensions and high degree of saturation recall. The strategies - an explanation of terms Extensions only - if traffic signals are on green when a bus arrives, the time the signals are on green is extended to allow the bus to proceed.

- 259 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Extensions and low/high degree of saturation recall - if traffic signals are on red when a bus arrives, Bus SCOOT looks at the other signal arms and decides whether to recall the green for the bus. Whether the green is recalled depends on the priority (low or high) assigned for this to occur. A low degree of saturation recall means that a low priority is given to the green recall for the bus over other signal arms. Conversely, a high degree of saturation recall means that a high priority is given to the green recall for the bus over other signal arms. Automatic data collection facilities were backed up by on-street measurement where necessary. The comprehensive database compiled as a result included most or all of the following for each strategy: automatic recording of bus identities and detection times, using palmtop computers installed in traffic signal controllers; automatic recording of traffic flows, delays and congestion using the ASTRID database, which automatically collects and stores traffic information from SCOOT for display or analysis; automatic recording of signal status and strategy actions i.e. bus priority to confirm that the system is working properly and to provide core data to explain what effect the system has on buses and general traffic; automatic traffic counts providing data for twelve main roads and side road links; manual recording of registration numbers for buses and a sample of cars at each end of the corridor, to provide journey times; queue length and traffic flow measurements on key side roads; and data on events such as system failures.

Results
Results Traffic flows The introduction of Bus SCOOT had no effect on traffic flows. Journey times Automatic recording logged some 25,000 bus journeys. The results indicate statistically significant savings in average bus delay and in delay variability of up to 20 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. System performance Bus SCOOT worked effectively during the demonstration project, as it had in previous surveys. The scheme did not record details of bus patronage and there were no issues regarding enforcement. Nor were there any effects of the scheme other than those recorded. One possible change to the scheme would be the use of automatic vehicle detection systems.

- 260 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Conclusions
Network capacity The bus priority strategies used on the Uxbridge Road are expected to have an insignificant effect on the network’s overall capacity. None of the strategies involve any physical measures or reallocation of road space. Bus SCOOT temporarily changes capacity at individual signal junctions when bus priority is in operation. However, with no stage skipping (stages run through in numerical order), and with green time compensation to non-priority stages, (stages not giving priority to buses are compensated for any loss of green time while priority is given to the link with priority), the average length of each stage (and hence capacity) remains largely unchanged. Travel time and delay All the priority strategies evaluated here have mainly affected travel time and delay. Buses operating with Bus SCOOT experience average delay savings of between 7 and 20 per cent between sites in London, with no significant effect on other traffic. Reliability and regularity All of the priority strategies in London have produced a saving in bus journey time reliability, expressed by the standard deviation of the journey times. The different strategies have recorded savings of between 4 and 13 per cent.

References
Bretherton, RD & Harrison, MEJ, Evaluation of SCOOT Bus Priority Field Trials, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/036/99, Crowthorne, 1999.

Acknowledgements
This was produced with the assistance of the University of Southampton, London Transport Buses and Transport for London. For further information contact TfL Bus Priority team on: 020 7960 6763.

Other examples
The SCOOT web site contains references to other successful implementations of SCOOT. The web address is: www.scoot-utc.com

Further information
To use Bus SCOOT on a network SCOOT 4.1 must installed and in use. Other information and guidance can be found in:

- 261 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

DETR Local Transport Note 1/97, Keeping Buses Moving, The Stationery Office, January 1997. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 7/99, SCOOT URBAN CONTROL SYSTEM. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/00, Bus Priority in SCOOT. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/01, Bus Priority. Bowen GT, Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 255, Crowthorne, 1997. Bretherton RD, Bowen GT, Harrison MEJ and Langford SL, Scope for Enhancing Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/197/96, Crowthorne, 1996. Bretherton RD and Wall GT, Review of Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/121/95, Crowthorne, 1995. Bretherton RD, Baker KA and Harrison MEJ, Public Transport Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/039/99, Crowthorne, 1999. Bretherton RD and Harrison MEJ, Evaluation of SCOOT Bus Priority Field Trials, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/036/99, Crowthorne, 1999. Gardener K and Metzger D, Uxbridge Road bus priority demonstration project, Proceedings of Seminar K (Traffic Management & Road Safety), pp. 63 - 74, 25th PTRC European Transport Forum, 1997. PROMPT: Field Trial and simulation results of bus priority in SCOOT, 8th International Conference (IEE) on Road Traffic Monitoring & Control, pp. 90 - 94, 1996.

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)
Description of need
Background The ’split cycle offset optimisation technique’ - or SCOOT - is an urban traffic control (UTC) system that the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) developed in collaboration with UK traffic system suppliers. SCOOT responds automatically to traffic conditions, altering signal settings to optimise junction operation so expensive updating of fixed time signal plans is unnecessary. This makes SCOOT an efficient tool for managingtraffic on roads that use traffic signals. Over 170 towns and cities in the UK now use SCOOT. Bus SCOOT is a facility incorporated into SCOOT to give priority to buses. In order for priority to be given, SCOOT must be informed about the location of buses. One means of doing this is using information from an Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system. There are two ways of providing AVL: the first is by using differential Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, and the second by using a beacon based system. Cardiff uses GPS technology. Most bus AVL systems in the UK allow the location of a bus to be compared against a schedule and, in this way, priority can be provided depending on a bus’s adherence to schedule. In the Cardiff system, for instance, it is possible to give priority only to those buses that are running behind schedule. Problems

- 262 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

In common with many other cities, Cardiff has seen significant growth in the use of the private car with traffic levels increasing by over 55 per cent since 1987. With only limited road capacity available, this is resulting in delays to all vehicles and consequent congestion and gaseous pollution. Objectives The overall aim in Cardiff is to secure a move to multimodal transport with an emphasis on public transport. The specific objectives of the Cardiff trial were to: ⢠reduce the delays to buses and improve their adherence to schedule using the SCOOT bus priority facility interfaced to an AVL system; and ⢠Test and evaluate the provision of priority only to buses running behind schedule.

Scheme details
Description The scheme tested was Bus SCOOT using AVL to inform SCOOT about the location of buses. The AVL facility was part of a real-time passenger information system that makes use of GPS technology. An on-board computer and GPS receiver tracks the bus’s location and a bus priority request is transmitted to SCOOT from the bus when a predefined location, stored in the on-board computer, is reached. The SCOOT AVL system in Cardiff concentrated on the northern corridor of the city and is the largest GPS based bus priority and real time passenger information system to be installed in the UK. 25 per cent of the city’s buses and 49 signalised junctions were included in the initial scheme. Implementation date The scheme was introduced in 1999. Cost The cost of the system depends on the method of bus detection. If there is an existing (AVL) system which is used for bus management and passenger information purposes (as in Cardiff), the additional cost of providing the information to SCOOT can be small (dependent on the type of AVL system). If there is no AVL system then there is an additional infrastructure cost for detection (for example - all buses equipped with transponders plus a bus loop installed on each approach where bus priority is required). Consultation Extensive consultation took place between Cardiff County Council and the main bus operator, Cardiff Bus, regarding planning and implementation of the scheme. Bus operator

- 263 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The main bus operator is Cardiff Bus. Bus frequency There were average bus flows of between 16 and 40 buses per hour through the junctions in the scheme.

Illustration of scheme
The survey area covered the ’Northern Corridor’ from just south of Caerphilly Road/Beulah Road in the North, to just past High Street/Castle Street in the South. Illustration of scheme Before and after monitoring Dates of surveys Trials were carried out by TRL over an eight week period in Autumn 2000. Due to some technical problems the amount of data collected was lower than planned. Consequently further trials were held over an eleven week period in Spring 2001. The strategies monitored were alternated on a weekly basis. Types of surveys Three strategies were surveyed: SCOOT without bus priority; SCOOT with priority enabled for all buses; and SCOOT with priority enabled only for buses running more than one minute behind schedule.

Results
Evaluation was significantly affected by events and technical problems encountered during the trial. In the AM peak when priority was given to all buses there was an average reduction in delay to buses of 4 seconds per bus per junction and an average reduction in lateness of 70 seconds. With priority given to only those buses behind schedule there was a reduction in delay to buses of 3 seconds per bus per junction and a reduction in lateness of 92 seconds. These results are in line with the benefits normally expected to be provided by Bus SCOOT. Providing priority only to buses behind schedule reduced the number of priority events and hence the number of times that general traffic was disrupted. Traffic flows Despite the advantages to bus operations, no decrease or increase in traffic flows was noted due to the introduction of this scheme.

- 264 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

System performance The Cardiff system demonstrated that active priority can be provided to buses on-street using the SCOOT bus priority facility interfaced with an AVL system. However, while the functionality of the SCOOT/ AVL interface has been shown, the potential benefits of bus priority in this particular instance were significantly affected by operational and technical problems. These problems were mostly due to: the high level of co-ordination required between different stakeholders; the number of interfaces between different systems; a lack of formal monitoring procedures; and the complexity of the systems combined with the relatively new use of the technology. Measures to reduce the impact of these factors are required for the successful implementation of an AVL bus priority system. These include: providing value adding facilities for the bus companies; training and information for drivers; and formal performance and fault monitoring procedures, all of which have been improved in Cardiff since the completion of the trial.

Conclusions
The success of the scheme has meant that 90 to 95 per cent of the city’s buses are now equipped with bus priority technology. The scheme has been expanded to cover 120 junctions.

References
Bowen, GT, Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 255, Crowthorne, 1997. Bretherton, RD, Bowen, GT, Harrison, MEJ & Langford, SL, Scope for Enhancing Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/197/96, Crowthorne, 1996. Bretherton, RD & Wall, GT, Review of Bus Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/121/95, Crowthorne, 1995. Bretherton, RD, Baker, KA & Harrison, MEJ, Public Transport Priority in SCOOT, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/039/99, Crowthorne,1999. Bretherton, RD & Harrison, MEJ, Evaluation of SCOOT Bus Priority Field Trials, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PT/TT/036/99, Crowthorne, 1999. Bretherton, RD, Maxwell, A & Wood, K, Provision of differential priority within SCOOT: Final Report, Transport Research Laboratory, Laboratory Report PR/T/025/03, Crowthorne, 2003.

Acknowledgements
This document was produced with the assistance of Cardiff County Council, ACIS, and Cardiff Bus. In particular, Reg Hill, Bill Cokeley, Graham Morris, and David Kinnaird of Cardiff County Council, Craig Gulliford of ACIS, and Geoff Blewden of Cardiff Bus. For further information, contact Dave Bretherton: dbretherton@trl.co.uk, or Keith Wood: kwood@trl.co.uk

- 265 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

For further information regarding Cardiff Bus, contact enquiries@cardiffbus.com or go to www.cardiffbus.com

Other examples
The SCOOT web site contains references to other successful implementations of SCOOT, the web address is: www.scoot-utc.com

Further information
To use Bus SCOOT on a network, SCOOT V3.1 (or more recent version) must be installed and in use. Other information and guidance can be found in: DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 7/99, SCOOT Urban Control System. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/00, Bus Priority in SCOOT. DETR, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/01, Bus Priority.

Mixed priority street
Description of need
Background Rusholme is located approximately one mile from the centre of Manchester and is the largest and one of the busiest district centres in Manchester. There is a concentration of local retail activity, student facilities, visitor attractions and ethnic minority enterprise and employment in the centre. It is the most successful retail centre in Manchester outside the city centre and is the location for over 150 ethnic minority businesses. Rusholme is considered culturally vital to Asian communities in Manchester and the North West of England. Activity is not confined to daytime on weekdays; the district centre is also busy in evenings and at weekends. Wilmslow Road runs southwards from Manchester City Centre to the northern boundary with Stockport linking South Manchester and Manchester Airport with the city centre. Frontage properties include retail, residential, commercial and light industrial land uses. Closer to the city centre, Wilmslow Road also serves Manchester Royal Infirmary, St Mary’s Hospital, Whitworth Art Gallery and the city’s higher education precinct. Problems Before implementation of the improvements, Wilmslow Road was a single carriageway road with two lanes in each direction. The success of Rusholme district centre combined with limited opportunities for off-street parking and rear servicing of retail and commercial properties resulted in high levels of on-street parking and servicing on Wilmslow Road. Indiscriminate and illegal parking was common creating hazards for pedestrians and cyclists, impeding traffic flow, creating congestion and contributing to delay and unreliability for buses.

- 266 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The area became hazardous for pedestrians forced to cross between parked vehicles, particularly as the high level of pedestrian activity continues late into the night in Rusholme. Analysis of accident data for a period of three years before implementation of the scheme showed 136 reported injury accidents involving 178 personal injuries. Unusually, 44 per cent of accidents occurred during the hours of darkness and accounted for more than half of all the injuries to pedestrians. Wilmslow Road is one of the busiest bus routes in Greater Manchester. The high volume of traffic and the extensive on-street parking/servicing contributed to traffic congestion that, in turn, led to delay to buses, considerable variability in bus journey times and a negative perception of the reliability of public transport on the Wilmslow Road Corridor. Journey times for buses on the corridor have been increasing year-on-year for a number of years with the result that additional buses have had to be deployed to maintain reliability and punctuality. Wilmslow Road also has the largest volume of cyclists in the North West. The concentration of vulnerable users on Wilmslow Road led to casualty numbers steadily increasing from 47 in 1998 to 81 in 2000. The Manchester Universities jointly expressed their concern on behalf of students on the campus just to the north of Rusholme. Meetings between the Rusholme Traders Association and the City Council indicated that the existing traffic management in place in the area was not satisfactory and the situation was negatively affecting the perceptions of those visiting and driving through the area. Objectives The Rusholme scheme is about encouraging the vitality of Rusholme district centre, improving safety and making better use of the carriageway space available. The objectives include: ⢠reducing accidents; increasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists; managing parking; managing servicing for local businesses; improve reliability of bus services by reducing journey time variability; encourage the vibrant business activity in the area enhancing local trading viability; reducing congestion and the associated negative environmental consequences; and improving visitor perceptions of the area.

Scheme details
Description The scheme on Wilmslow Road reduced the four lane carriageway through the district centre to a single mixed use lane in each direction between Hathersage Road and Dickenson Road in order to allow the provision of defined servicing bays, parking bays and bus stops. The traffic lanes are narrow in order to inhibit inconsiderate parking. The remaining carriageway space was used to introduce horizontal alignment changes to reduce vehicle speeds and provide improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and bus passengers. The natural curvature of the road was exaggerated to encourage drivers to reduce their speed appropriately.

- 267 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Short unconnected sections of bus lane were removed from the core area and replaced by with-flow bus lanes with a minimum width of 4.0 metres on the northern and southern approaches to the core area terminating at transponder controlled signalised bus gates. This is the element of the scheme that is intended to provide priority for buses. The scheme embodies principles of traffic metering and queue relocation. The traffic signal installations at junctions at both ends of the district centre can be used to manage the flow of traffic through the centre. Peak period traffic queues on the northern and southern approaches to the district centre can be bypassed by buses using the bus lanes and bus gates. Bus stops were relocated to align with crossing facilities and areas with appropriate footpath space. Other additional measures included: raised kerbs and improvements to the bus stop environment to aid boarding; bus stops with shallow saw-tooth bus bays, conventional bus bays and bus boarders protected by red cordon markings and clearway orders; removal of short and discontinuous lengths of with-flow bus lane on Wilmslow Road in the district centre and implementation of longer lengths of with-flow bus lane terminating in bus gates on the northern and southern approaches to the district centre; footway widening to allow a pedestrian clearway free of obstruction by street furniture; introduction of continuous full time cycle lanes; and a number of measures to enhance the character of the area including ’street art’ to reinforce the cultural identity of Rusholme, upgraded street furniture and improved street lighting. Three illustrations are provided - Figure 1 provides an overview of the scheme; Figure 2 provides a sketch layout of an area at the southern end of the scheme; and Figure 3 illustrates the layout on a section of Wilmslow Road in the district centre. Implementation date The mixed priority scheme on the section of Wilmslow Road between Hathersage Road at the northern end of the district centre and Platt Lane at the southern end was completed in September 2004. The with-flow bus lanes on the northern and southern approaches to the city centre were implemented shortly afterwards. 39 40 41 Costs Total scheme implementation cost was £2.0 million. The scheme was designated as a Safety Scheme Demonstration Project and attracted funding of £1.0 million from DETR (DfT) following a competitive bidding process. The balance of £1.0 million was funded from local resources.

- 268 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Consultation Initial informal consultation with ward members and officers of the Local Regeneration Partnership took place before consultation with the public and stakeholders. Advance consultation also took place between Manchester City Council, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive and Greater Manchester Police. A combination of methods of consultation with the public was used including: distribution of explanatory leaflets to all properties on Wilmslow Road with a contact facility for a translated version of the leaflet for non-English speaking residents; public exhibitions were held and included models and artists impressions of the scheme; a telephone hotline to receive comments; this was staffed and was not just an answer phone service; dissemination of information through the local media; and meetings with the emergency services to discuss traffic management issues. A joint representative working party and steering committee was formed to oversee the implementation of the proposals. Bus operators Wilmslow Road has the highest number of registered bus services on any road in Greater Manchester operated by Stagecoach Manchester including services provided under the Magic Bus brand name. Other operators providing local bus services on Wilmslow Road include First Manchester, Arriva North West, Finglands and five smaller independent companies. Bus frequency In the inter-peak period on weekdays there is a total hourly two-way flow of 110 buses on Wilmslow Road through the district centre. The hourly two-way flow increases to 136 on the section of Wilmslow Road to the north of the district centre where the southbound with-flow bus lane is located. Bus flows are substantially higher during weekday peak periods.

Scheme impact
Post implementation monitoring of the impact of the scheme has not yet taken place, but it is anticipated that it will deliver the following outcomes: an improvement in the street environment making the district centre more attractive for shoppers and visitors; a reduction in indiscriminate and illegal parking. The initial view of the bus operator is that a similar scheme in nearby Withington has been more effective in eliminating problem parking because the traffic lanes are narrower and there is less opportunity to park without completely blocking traffic; a reduction in the high numbers of pedestrian casualties achieved through the provision of additional pedestrian crossing facilities, speed reduction measures and better management of on-street parking and servicing of frontage businesses; a reduction in the number of accidents involving cyclists achieved by providing cycle lanes and advanced stop lines;

- 269 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

a more attractive environment and full accessibility at bus stops; and improvements in reliability, and particularly a reduction in the variability of bus journey times, as a result of implementation of bus priority measures on the approaches to the district centre, queue relocation and the metering of traffic through the mixed priority section of Wilmslow Road.

Conclusions
This mixed priority scheme has improved conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, reduced speeds, and allowed better management of parking and servicing in Rusholme district centre. The specific elements of the scheme that benefit buses are the two bus lanes and bus gates on the approaches to the district centre. They allow buses to overtake other traffic, provide journey time and reliability benefits, and help outbound right-turning buses on the northern approach to the district centre. The mixed priority measures implemented in the district centre are thought to have had a broadly neutral effect on buses; benefits from better control of parking and servicing being offset by the impact of additional pedestrian crossing facilities.

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgement is given for the assistance provided by Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, Manchester City Council and Stagecoach Manchester during preparation of this case study.

Other examples
There are similar examples of mixed priority routes elsewhere in Greater Manchester including the district centres of Levenshulme and Withington.

Further information
For further information contact the bus priority team at Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive on 0161 242 6000 or write to: Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive 19 Portland Street Piccadilly Gardens Manchester M60 1HX

Bus friendly traffic calming
Description of need
Background The first traffic calming scheme with road humps was introduced in Hull in 1993. Since then Hull City Council has achieved substantial reduction in road accident casualties. Central to the success of Hull’s traffic calming policy has been the introduction of 20 mph zones throughout the city, the first of which was introduced in 1995. The idea of 20 mph zones was introduced in the UK to address the problem of child pedestrian accidents. DfT guidance on 20 mph zones suggests that the risk of a child being involved

- 270 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

in an accident drops by two thirds with the introduction of a 20 mph zone (TRL analysed 250 zones which indicated that child accidents fell by 67 per cent and the overall number of accidents fell by 60 per cent). illustration of scheme By 1998 Hull City Council had developed fifty 20 mph zones, including zones on a number of bus routes. These were a mixture of high and low frequency routes with some calmed roads having as many as 14 buses per hour each way. A further development in 1998 was the acceptance of agreed standards between the City Council, bus operators and emergency services in Hull for bus and ambulance friendly traffic calming. Currently in Hull there are just under 17 kilometres of traffic calming on bus routes in the city, 9 kilometres of which is on bus routes with a frequency of 10 minutes or greater. Objectives The agreed standards for traffic calming were introduced in Hull in order to minimise the impact of traffic calming on bus routes and ambulances responding to emergency calls, whilst still reducing mean speeds and achieving the targeted casualty reductions. In general, where traffic calming is not carefully consulted on at the design stage, the impact upon public transport can result in services being withdrawn due to additional time added to the service and wear and tear on vehicles making a route not commercially viable. There are also cases in some parts of the country where bus drivers have complained that poorly designed traffic calming has resulted in injuries through repeated driving over humps. Additional objectives of traffic calming include reducing average traffic speeds, increasing the number of people walking and cycling, improving the environment for those who live work or travel along the route and providing a safer route to school for local children.

Scheme details
Description The agreed standards between Hull City Council and the bus operator included: all vertical traffic calming measures to be a maximum 75 millimetres high; all speed cushions to be 2.1 metres wide, 3 metres long with 550 millimetres side slopes; speed table/flat top humps to have 1800 millimetres long ramps with a minimum 9 metre long plateau; all traffic calming schemes to include minimum number of measures to achieve objectives; minimum 15 metre length of waiting restrictions to protect each side of speed cushion; and regular traffic calming meetings between city council, bus operators and emergency services. Traffic calming measures on Shannon Road Traffic calming measures on Shannon Road The dimensions of the traffic calming measures were agreed to take advantage of the wider wheel base of the buses.

- 271 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The waiting restrictions surrounding traffic calming measures prevent cars from parking on the approach to speed cushions, ensuring that buses are able to approach the traffic calming at the correct angle, allowing a more comfortable journey for the passenger. Hull now has over one hundred 20 mph zones throughout the city. An example of one of these schemes can be seen on Shannon Road. This scheme was introduced in April 1998 in response to a previous high level of injury accidents, especially involving child pedestrians and cyclists. Shannon Road is a local distributor route carrying around 5,000 vehicles per day and services a large estate to the east of the city centre. A frequent bus service exists and there are numerous shops and a school on the route. The scheme consists of speed cushions throughout its length and a short section of 20 mph zone to protect the school and major shopping area. The 20 mph zone includes road narrowing and priority working to enforce the 20 mph limit. The signs positioned at the entrance to all zones in Hull have been designed by local children, helping to emphasise local ownership of the scheme. Cost The overall contribution to the implementation of the 20 mph zones in Hull is £5.5 million to date. This has been met from a variety of different sources both from corporate capital and transport capital funding. Consultation Decisions on the choice of traffic calming measures to use at any particular location in Hull is based on experience that has been built up in the area and on extensive consultation with the bus operators, emergency services and the public. All the 20 mph zones went through consultation including leaflets, questionnaires, public exhibitions and meetings of ward forums and residential committees. Owing to the current scale of traffic calming in Hull there is a high level of community awareness surrounding traffic calming and communities are well aware of the positive results from other local areas. In fact much of the demand for the schemes has come from within the local communities. Bus operators Bus operators are now actively involved in the design of traffic calming in Hull, this includes consultation on issues such as spacing and positioning of cushions in relation to bus stops. The scheme on Newland Avenue (a national road safety demonstration project) is an example of a scheme where the council and bus operator have worked closely together in designing the layout of the carriageway, negotiating the optimum position for cushions, bus stops and crossing facilities to reduce delay experienced by bus services on the route and minimise any discomfort which may be experience by the passenger as a result of traffic calming measures. One issue raised by operators is the effect of traffic calming on services which are operated by mini and midi bus services. Because of their shorter wheel base they are unable to avoid the effects of the traffic calming even with the agreed measures. This produces a ’wobble’ effect for the passengers and exerts additional pressure on the inner wheel of the vehicle, as the vehicle is not able to get both wheels on the slopes of the cushion. The solution to this has been to increase the width of the cushion allowing the mini

- 272 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

buses to get both wheels on the side slopes of the cushions. The additional problem here is that any measures introduced to mitigate the effects on mini and midi buses will also be effective for small vans, reducing the overall effectiveness of the traffic calming scheme. The operators enforce the 20 mph zone through driver instruction and by the use of sporadic speed gun checks, particularly in areas where there have been complaints about buses allegedly speeding. Bus operators have realised a hidden saving from the extensive traffic calming and introduction of 20 mph zones. Where accidents occur on high frequency routes the bus operator still needs to provide the same frequency of service although buses will become caught up in the delay associated with the accident. This delay can be as much as 15 minutes which means an additional bus is required on the route to maintain the correct frequency. The reduction in accidents through the implementation of traffic calming therefore results in a saving to the operators as there are fewer occasions where they need to provide the extra bus. This kind of saving is only applicable to areas where there is extensive traffic calming. The reduction in accidents also improves the reliability of services across the whole network particularly for cross city services.

Before and after monitoring
A number of monitoring studies have been undertaken in areas where bus friendly traffic calming has been introduced. In Hull accident data for the city has been collated for three years before each scheme and three years after each scheme. In addition, the Institute for Public Policy Research conducted research into child pedestrian safety using Hull as one of its case studies. TRL have undertaken a study of 20 mph zones, including analysis of the impact of 20 mph zones on traffic flows in treated areas and surrounding areas which may be affected by traffic transferring to other streets. Whilst bus operators monitor journey times, reliability and patronage levels these figures can be misleading indicators as they tend to be affected by other factors such bus priority measures in other parts of the city.

Results
Traffic flows The TRL report ’Review of Traffic Calming in 20 mph Zones’ suggests that traffic flow was reduced by 27 per cent within 20 mph zones, whereas the roads surrounding the 20 mph zones experienced an increase of 12 per cent. Traffic flows were monitored at two sites in the Shannon Road safety scheme. The results showed that traffic had been reduced by over a quarter in the 20 mph zone in the afternoon peak (28.6 per cent between 15.30 and 16.30). Journey times Bus operators have taken the view that traffic calming has only had a negligible effect on bus journey times. In most cases the bus routes where traffic calming has been implemented were already slow routes with numerous stops and high patronage, resulting in average speeds of around 10 mph for buses even before traffic calming. Thus the reduction in general traffic flow experienced on these routes as a result of

- 273 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

traffic calming may have a positive effect on bus journey times. Casualty reduction Accident data collated by Hull City Council for three years before and after the implementation of traffic calming on bus routes (18 schemes in total) revealed that the number of accidents has dropped from 315 in the three years before traffic calmed zones were implemented to 156 in the three years after implementation. This equates to a reduction of 53 accidents per year and 4.3 less accidents per kilometre per year. Overall: fatal and serious injury accidents have been reduced by 64 per cent; injury accidents involving children have been reduced by 60 per cent; injury accidents involving pedestrians have been reduced by 60 per cent; injury accidents involving child pedestrians have been reduced by 71 per cent; injury accidents involving cyclists have been reduced by 28 per cent; and injury accidents involving child cyclists have been reduced by 32 per cent. Looking at this data on a scheme by scheme basis Shannon Road saw a reduction in accidents in the three years proceeding traffic calming of 71 per cent, with accidents per year falling from 9.3 to 2.7 between 1995 and 2000. Greatest changes were seen in accidents involving pedestrians which saw a reduction of 93 per cent and accidents during darkness which saw a reduction of 85 per cent. An Institute for Public Policy Research study estimated that since 1994 Hull’s programme of 20 mph zones has already saved about 200 serious injuries and about 1000 minor injuries. In accounting terms these savings are worth well over £40 million. Total number of crashes in 20 mph zones has fallen by 56 per cent and the number of crashes resulting in deaths or serious injuries has been cut by 90 per cent. This reduction in accidents on the city’s roads is also felt to have a positive impact on the reliability of bus services; an accident can cause in the region of 15 minutes delay to a service, having a serious impact on passengers’ perceptions of reliability and punctuality. This is particularly an issue if a bus route is affected by an accident hotspot and is consequently experiencing regular delays. Average vehicle speeds At Shannon Road the scheme was introduced incrementally. The 20 mph signs were introduced followed by speed roundels and finally the main scheme was introduced. Vehicle speeds were monitored through this phasing and the results can be seen in the table below: Summary of traffic speed Summary of traffic speed

- 274 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The results show that the largest reduction occurred when the full scheme was implemented with average speeds being reduced by up to a third, although a noticeable reduction in speed occurred with the introduction of the signs and roundels.

Conclusions
The key to bus friendly traffic calming is extensive consultation between the bus operators and council representatives. This is highlighted in Hull where the Council and bus operators have been working together on traffic calming schemes for ten years. Traffic calming has been able to improve bus reliability through a number of indirect routes including a reduction in the number of accidents on the network reducing the delay experienced by bus services and through a reduction in traffic flows on traffic calmed routes resulting in buses experiencing less congestion related delays in these areas. A number of issues remain unresolved with regards to public transport and traffic calming including the fact that priority seats on buses for the elderly and those with mobility impairments tend to be positioned at the front of the bus over the front wheels. This is where the ’wobble effect’ created by speed cushions is greatest and has led to a number of complaints about the discomfort of the journey and incidents where shopping has fallen over. There is also the issue of services which operate using mini and midi buses as the dimensions for traffic calming measures agreed between the city council and bus operators does not accommodate the shorter wheel base of these vehicles. The future Currently 26 per cent of the 730 kilometres of road are covered by a 20 mph limit and further areas are under consideration. Some 60 per cent of roads in Hull are suitable for 20 mph zones, although the great majority of these will be in residential areas away from the main bus routes. European approach A number of bus friendly traffic calming measures from mainland Europe are discussed in ’Civilised Streets a guide to traffic calming’. One example of this is the combi hump used in Denmark. The design includes two humps one for cars (in the middle) and two for buses (either side of the hump for cars), the hump for cars being more severe than that for buses, taking advantage of the difference in wheel base lengths between buses and cars. Sweden has developed a traffic calming measure using a depression in the road (used in Stockholm and Västeras). The depressions are wide enough that cars must drive through them but buses are able to straddle them, this has led to support from bus operators for this measure. There are three areas of concern with using depressions as a traffic calming measure, firstly they are less visible than a hump, secondly there have been some drainage issues and finally the cost of this measure is approximately four times that of installing humps.

- 275 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

A further example can be found in Denmark which combines depressions and humps. This is know as the bus sluis and comprises a hump in the normal carriage way with a separate section of carriage way for buses. This separate section has a depression with a ramp leading up to it which buses can straddle and cars can not; the disadvantage with this measure is the amount of carriage way width required.

References
Brightwell, Sarah, Hull reaps road safety rewards from slowing the city’s traffic, Local Transport Today, 15/05/04. Carmen Hass Klau et al, Civilised Streets a guide to traffic calming, Environmental and Transport Planning, 1992. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 09/99, 20 mph speed limits and zones, DfT, 1999.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Hull City Council and East Yorkshire Motor Services Limited.

Other examples
Telford & Wrekin Council. Contact the Network Management and Development Department on: 01952 202100 (main switchboard).

Further information
Further information on traffic calming in Hull can be obtained from: Traffic Projects Manager Traffic Services Kingston upon Hull City Council Kingston House Bond Street Hull HU1 3ER 01482 612095

- 276 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
Description of need
Background High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or ’2 Plus’ lanes were introduced on the A647 Stanningley Road and Stanningley By-Pass as Leeds City Council’s contribution to the ICARO (Increasing CAR Occupancy) research project. Stanningley Road and Stanningley By-Pass form the principal radial route to the west of Leeds city centre and are part of the route linking Leeds and Bradford. Problems The part of Stanningley Road and Stanningley By-Pass chosen for the HOV lane is a dual two lane carriageway. In January 1997, journey times in free-flow traffic conditions were little more than 5 minutes for 2.0km whereas, in the morning peak period, journey times were typically more than 10 minutes. Objectives Leeds City Council saw the primary objective of the scheme to be to provide priority for the majority of people travelling towards Leeds on the A647 in peak periods. It was expected that the scheme would result in an increase in car occupancy. ICARO objectives were broader in scope. The aims were: to increase car occupancy by encouraging car sharing; and to demonstrate the feasibility of providing a lane for shared use by buses, other high occupancy vehicles, motorcycles and cycles.

Scheme details
Description The HOV lane is available to buses, coaches, other vehicles carrying 2 or more people, motorcycles and pedal cycles. Goods vehicles over 7.5T are not permitted to use the 2+ lane. There are two lengths of inbound HOV or 2+ lane extending for a total of 1.5km along 2.0km of dual carriageway. The HOV lanes operate in the morning and evening peak periods (07:00 - 10:00, 16:00 19:00) on Mondays to Fridays. Advance signing is provided on the approaches to the HOV lanes. Half-width laybys are provided to ensure that buses can serve bus stops without obstructing the flow of other permitted categories of traffic. Traffic signal control is provided at the end of the HOV lane to manage merging of traffic from the HOV and non-HOV traffic lanes. At first these signals operated for fixed time periods. They have been modified to respond to different traffic conditions before and after the end of the HOV lanes. The signals can also switch on and off in response to traffic conditions.

- 277 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The scheme included police enforcement laybys, speed cameras, improved street lighting, improvements at bus stops, pelican crossings with tactile paving, anti-skid surfacing and changes to traffic circulation on side roads. Implementation date The HOV lane was opened under an experimental Traffic Regulation Order on 11 May 1998 and made permanent on 8 November 1999. Costs Scheme implementation cost was £585,000 at 1998 prices. Illustratin of scheme Consultation The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 authorises local authorities to introduce experimental TROs without prior consultation. In this case, although there was no formal public consultation, there was substantial consultation with elected members, the emergency services, bus operators, cycling groups, groups representing the disabled community, motoring organisations and local community groups before implementation. Further consultation took place with residents, the police and bus operators after implementation resulting in minor changes to the initial scheme. Bus operators The majority of bus services on Stanningley Road are operated by First, but some services are provided by Black Prince Coaches. Bus frequency There are 8 buses an hour in each direction using the first section of HOV lane on Stanningley Bypass. This increases to 17 buses an hour in each direction between the junction of Stanningley Bypass and Stanningley Road in Bramley and Armley.

Before and after monitoring
Dates of surveys ’Before’ surveys were undertaken in May and June 1997. ’After’ surveys took place in May and June 1999. Analysis of further surveys undertaken in September 2002 is nearing completion. Types of surveys Data collected included traffic counts in the morning and evening peak periods, vehicle occupancy, journey times and queue lengths. In addition, analysis was undertaken of records of personal injury accidents and police enforcement. Information on public attitudes and driver behaviour was obtained from household and roadside interview surveys. An environmental monitoring station on Stanningley Road provided information on air quality.

- 278 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Results
An evaluation of scheme impacts has been undertaken by Leeds City Council. Morning peak traffic flows: Immediately after opening there was significant driver avoidance of the A647 and traffic flow fell by 20 per cent. By late 1999, traffic flows had returned to 1997 levels in both the peak hour and the operational period. Evening peak traffic flows: Traffic flow in the operational period (16:00 to 19:00) fell by 10 per cent at scheme inception, but returned to the ’before’ level by June 1999. By June 2002 traffic flow had increased by a further 14 per cent in the three hour period. Occupancy: In 1997, 30 per cent of cars carried two or more occupants. One third of vehicles (including buses) carried two-thirds of people travelling in the corridor in the morning peak period. The number of high occupancy vehicles using the A647 in the period 07:00 to 10:00 increased by 5 per cent between 1997 and 1999. Given that 1997 and 1999 flows were similar, the implication is that there was an exchange of HOV and non-HOV traffic between the A647 and parallel routes. Average car occupancy rose from 1.35 in May 1997 to 1.43 by June 1999 and 1.51 in 2002. Bus patronage increased by one per cent in the first year of operation of the HOV lanes. There are indications of further growth in bus patronage since 1998, but the recent introduction by First of an ’Overground’ network inhibits robust conclusions. Journey times: Morning peak journey time savings for buses and other high occupancy vehicles were 4 minutes comparing June 1997 and June 1999 data. Over the same period there was a reduction of 1½ minutes in non-HOV journey times. Accidents: There was reduction of 30 per cent in casualties in a period of three years after scheme implementation in May 1998. Enforcement: Lane violation levels were low in the months following implementation as a result of daily police enforcement. In 2002 lane violation levels were still less than 6 per cent despite a relaxation of enforcement. This can be attributed to the level of enforcement agreed between the city council and the police. Public attitudes: Roadside interviews in February 1999 showed HOV driver support for the lane to be only 66 per cent. This is low considering the journey time benefits of the scheme. The reason may be that HOV drivers also made peak period journeys as non-HOV drivers and, when doing so, did not benefit from the journey time savings observed. Air quality: There has been little change in air quality on the A647 as a result of the introduction of the HOV lane. The relatively small improvement can be attributed to reduced vehicle emissions rather than to the impact of the HOV lane.

- 279 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Conclusions
The HOV lanes scheme on the A647 Stanningley Road and Stanningley By-Pass has resulted in: a reduction in inbound journey times for buses and other high occupancy vehicles of 4 minutes in the morning peak; a reduction in inbound non-HOV journey times of 1½ minutes in the morning peak; increases in bus patronage and average car occupancy; a reduction in the number of accident casualties; and a low level of violation. Following the success of the scheme on the A647, Leeds City Council is now planning to introduce HOV lanes on the proposed East Leeds Link Road. Leeds City Council is now participating in the HOV Monitoring (HOVMON) project to develop automated camera enforcement techniques to determine car occupancy.

Acknowledgements
This case study was produced with the assistance of Leeds City Council and Metro (West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive).

Other examples
A4174 Avon Ring Road westbound (A432 to M32), Hambrook, South Gloucestershire (in the North Fringe of Bristol). Contact South Gloucestershire Council, Planning Transportation and Strategic Environment Department on 01454 868686.

Further information
Further information on the A647 Stanningley Road HOV lane can be obtained from: Leeds City Council Highways and Transport Department The Leonardo Building, 2 Rossington Street, Leeds LS2 8HB

- 280 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

0113 247 7500 http://www.leeds.gov.uk The publicity leaflet ’Priority Lane for High Occupancy Vehicles’ (1999) is available from Leeds City Council at the above address.

No-car lanes
Description of need
Background Superoutes, first proposed in 1998, offered a new approach to bus travel within the Tyne and Wear region. The 35 superoutes within the region are the product of informal quality bus partnerships etween local councils, bus operators and Nexus with the aim of delivering frequent, high quality services along key public transport routes. The superoutes aim to; provide modern buses and infrastructure; provide better travel information, lighting and security at bus stops; implement bus priority and highway improvements to enable quicker journeys; ensure frequent, more reliable journeys; improve interconnection between services in the region; provide Euro 11 emissions compliant vehicles; and increase bus patronage across the region. Several of the superoutes within the Sunderland area run along A690 Durham Road. The City of Sunderland Council developed proposals for providing priority for buses and upgrading passenger facilities and information on the A690 Durham Road following an assessment of the potential benefits of providing ’Green Route’ treatment on a number of corridors in the city. Green corridors are routes that have been upgraded to give priority to vulnerable users such as pedestrians and cyclists and public transport vehicles. Measures to benefit buses and bus users on the Durham Road Corridor were implemented in several stages and promoted as the Durham Road Superoute. Bus services in the corridor also benefited from investment in Park Lane Interchange in the city centre and the designation of a special parking area to address illegal parking. No-car lanes are a relatively new concept in the re-allocation of highway space. The concept which evolved from that of the bus lane is based on use of the lane by buses and some other vehicles, but the prevention of car use in the designated lane. These lanes have been introduced to Newcastle City Centre and it is hoped that the success can be repeated across the region. It is now proposed to designate the bus lanes on Durham Road as no-car lanes.

- 281 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Problems Bus priority and green corridor measures were proposed along the high frequency bus route along Durham Road in response to the following problems: delay to buses caused by traffic congestion at key junctions in the city centre; delay to buses on Durham Road in the direction of peak flow on the approaches to major junctions on the corridor; obstructions to traffic caused by right turning traffic and legitimate and illegal on-street parking; difficulty in emerging into heavy free-flowing traffic and queuing traffic from bus lay-bys; and difficulties for buses entering Durham Road from side roads. The problems were predominantly experienced in peak periods. Objectives The objectives of the superoute bus priority proposals were to: make the city centre more accessible; provide high quality bus services to the city centre by improving reliability and reducing variability of journey times; achieve modal shift from car to bus; and improve the surrounding environment. The overall objective was to raise the profile and quality of bus services in the City of Sunderland through the application of Green Route treatment.

Scheme Details
Description The Durham Road Superoute was formally launched in April 1998 and was at the time the most comprehensive corridor approach to improving bus travel in Tyne & Wear. The scheme comprised 1630 metres of bus lanes, new bus shelters, improved passenger information and 21 new low floor buses (with ramps for wheelchair access, grant aided by Nexus). This superoute is the first scheme introduced under a Quality Partnership for the City of Sunderland. Stagecoach Busways, Go Wear (Go Ahead Group), City of Sunderland and Nexus were all involved in the scheme. Costs The cost of introducing the superoute scheme was £250,000, including design and monitoring. The estimated cost of implementing no-car lanes on Durham Road is £50,000, including design and monitoring. Consultation

- 282 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The emergency services, bus operators and ward members were all consulted in addition to face-to-face interviews with residents as part of the evaluation procedure. Bus operators The two main bus operators running services along the A690 Durham Road Superoute corridor are Stagecoach and GO North-East. Arriva also operate a bus service along Durham Road. Bus frequency The Durham Road Superoute extends from Sunderland City Centre to the city boundary to the west of the junction of the A690 Durham Road with the A19 at East Herrington. The number of buses per hour using the superoute increases eastwards as routes from residential suburbs join Durham Road. Weekday peak period frequency rises from 6 buses per hour in each direction at the A19 intersection to 22 buses per hour close to the city centre. The five superoutes serving the corridor account for the majority of this number.

Before and after monitoring
Dates and types of survey A comprehensive programme of before and after scheme monitoring has been undertaken on the Durham Road Superoute. Journey times (including time at bus stops allowing passengers to board and alight) have been recorded by the moving observer method, initially with survey staff on buses and more recently through roadside surveys. The most recent surveys were undertaken in 2002 and it is from these that the following results are taken. Before and after comparisons are difficult as in 1997 and 1998 buses operated to and from the central bus station in Sunderland and from May 1999, Park Lane Interchange opened and services were then diverted. In the future bus journey time monitoring will move away from manual recording to automated data collection, enabling a more complete analysis of the impacts of schemes. A series of household attitudinal surveys were posted in the vicinity of the superoute; 335 residents responded. In addition to this, user attitudinal surveys were also carried out in the form of face-to-face interviews on buses and at bus stops.

Results
Traffic flows General traffic flows on the corridor have decreased by 6 per cent at the outer cordon and 16 per cent in the inner cordon. Flows on alternative routes have increased by 6 per cent, on both Chester Road and Silksworth Lane. Traffic delay surveys have revealed increased journey times for traffic, particularly outbound during the evening peak. Journey times and reliability

- 283 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The moving observer surveys comparing bus journey times for November 1997 to November 1998 reveal both benefits and disbenefits. The introduction of bus priority measures has produced more consistent journey times and reduced the large variation identified in the 1997 survey. However, there are now delays at traffic signal controlled junctions on the route where there is no bus priority and outbound on the approach to the Barnes Gyratory. Average measured journey times along the corridor are in the range of 9 to 11 minutes compared with the scheduled journey time of 15 minutes. More recent figures reveal a rise in journey times which can be attributed to the increase in traffic on the periphery of the city centre and longer times accessing and egressing the Interchange. Patronage Continuous monitoring of bus services has shown a 6 per cent patronage increase on Durham Road Easy Access bus services and a slight increase in travel on other bus services on Durham Road. Both are measured in comparison to other bus services in Sunderland. Easy Access bus services account for 55 per cent of passengers travelling on the corridor. Safety The transformation of the A690 Durham Road to the superoute has seen a reduction in accidents along the corridor. In 1998 the number of fatal and serious accidents fell to 28 in comparison to the 40 recorded the previous year. In the same time period slight accidents fell from 257 to 231. System performance The household attitudinal surveys revealed the following: ⢠93 per cent agreed that ease of getting on and off buses is now good or very good; 92 per cent of respondents said that general quality of low floor buses is good or very good; 36 per cent revealed that the superoute has improved bus travel; and 19 per cent revealed they use the route more often now than they did a year ago. The face-to-face interviews provided the following results: ⢠81 per cent of respondents listed access for wheelchairs and prams as the main factor that has improved since the introduction of bus lanes and low floor buses, with 96 per cent agreeing that accessibility for wheelchair and prams is good; over 80 per cent of those interviewed thought that information, frequency of service, punctuality, vehicle quality and attitude of drivers is good; and 73 per cent agreed that the provision of bus lanes had improved the service.

The evolution of no-car lanes
Bus lanes assist the movement of buses around congested city centres by reducing journey time and improving reliability, but in many cases no-car lanes have proven to be a more effective use of road space. The Government White Paper recognised that congestion and unreliability of journeys adds to the cost of businesses, undermining competitiveness in our towns and cities. No-car lanes give priority for essential vehicles facilitating the movement of goods as well as people in congested urban centres.

- 284 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

In addition to helping the movement of buses and goods vehicles, no-car lanes can increase road capacity in some cases by segregating wider vehicles from standard vehicle lanes. Another major benefit is the reduction of lorry traffic on alternative routes. No-car lanes are probably best utilised in situations where bus flows are too low to justify a lane exclusively for buses. Newcastle City Council has led the way in the implementation of no-car lanes. In Newcastle city centre there are many existing or planned no-car lanes, for example on Barras Bridge, New Bridge Street, Westgate Road, Sandyford Road, John Dobson Street, Barrack Road, Percy Street and Great North Road. No data has been produced to evaluate the schemes but feedback from user groups has been positive so far. The previous examples are all successful schemes in Tyne and Wear; it is therefore feasible that the success of these schemes could be translated to Sunderland with the implementation of/conversion to no-car lanes on the A690 Durham Road Superoute.

Conclusions
The introduction of a bus lane on Durham Road has provided a more direct route to Sunderland city centre, which can be seen in the reduction in journey times. There have also been significant decreases in traffic flows. Durham Road Easy Access bus services have also seen a patronage increase of 6 per cent with household and user attitudinal surveys revealing positive feedback. The results show that the superoute has successfully met its objectives. However the success of no-car lanes in nearby Newcastle shows that lanes need not be exclusive to buses in order to relieve urban congestion and that in the future a conversion of some or all of the A690 Durham Road to a no-car lane may be a more viable option.

Acknowledgements
This document was produced with the assistance of the City of Sunderland Council and Nexus.

Further information
Further information can be obtained from: City of Sunderland Council Development and Regeneration Directorate City Centre Burdon Road Sunderland SR2 7DN 0191 5531000

- 285 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

http://www.sunderland.gov.uk Newcastle City Council Planning and Transport Section Newcastle City Council Civic Centre Barras Bridge Newcastle upon Tyne NE99 1RD http://www.newcastle.gov.uk Nexus Nexus House St James Boulevard Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4AX 0191 2033333 http://www.nexus.co.uk Further information on superoute can be obtained at: www.superoute.com

Bus park and ride
Description of need
Background The UK’s longest-running park and ride site was established in Oxford during the early 1970s. This as part of a comprehensive transport strategy designed to discourage traffic from entering the city because of its adverse effect on the city’s historic fabric. A number of other cities experimented with ark and ride including Nottingham and Leicester. A lull in park and ride development followed, as traffic growth predictions were not borne out in reality. A new phase of park and ride schemes were implemented in the mid 1980s in a bid to alleviate city centre congestion. This phase included schemes in Bath, Cambridge and Chester. The introduction of new park and ride sites continued into the mid 1990s. The 1990s also saw existing sites begin to expand to accommodate the needs of changing demand.

- 286 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The Government’s 10-Year Plan of July 2000 promised, "high quality park and ride schemes so that people do not have to drive into congested town centres", setting a target for the development of "up to 100 new park and ride schemes" by 2010. Since 2000 there has been a net increase of 26 sites, and plans are being developed for further significant expansion. Site location The target market for park and ride is existing car users who would otherwise drive into the town centre. Sites are usually located on radial routes on the edge of the urban area to intercept inbound motorists. However, it is important to consider the potential impacts on local bus services. Abstraction of patronage from local services to park and ride also reduces the capacity of the service. In a survey of all the bus based park and ride schemes in the UK, the average distance from the city for a park and ride site was two to three miles. This analysis also revealed that all but one of the sites over 4 miles away had been built since 2000. The table overleaf illustrates the distance of park and ride sites from the urban centres. Park and ride in Great Britain Distance from the centre (miles) Number of sites Up to 0.5 0.5 to 1 1 to 1.5 1.5 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 6 to 7 Over 10 miles Source: TAS (2003) Key elements Park and ride schemes form part of an overall transport strategy. This can include a package of measures constraining traffic in the city centre that includes; reducing parking spaces, applying appropriate charging, extending traffic free zones, encouraging walking and cycling. Parking controls in the city centre are an integral part of park and ride strategies. Those park and ride sites with the highest utilisation levels tend to offer a huge discount in cost of parking compared with town centre parking (18-19 per cent of the town centre rate at peak times). In some towns the popularity of the park and ride scheme has been adversely affected by the reluctance to introduce on-street parking management in the city centre. The 1 9 19 16 30 18 3 1 2

- 287 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

primary reason for this is fear of inducing a transfer of retail trade to other nearby centres. Park and ride car parks have the advantage that they tend to have larger spaces and are therefore easier to park in, due to value of land being lower on these edges of urban area locations. Urban centre parking is often multi-storey to maximise the floor space available, many drivers dislike multi-storey car parks due to associated safety concerns. Frequent and reliable bus services are crucial to the success of park and ride schemes. A service frequency of broadly ten minutes off-peak and seven to eight minutes in peak times is suggested by ’Bus-Based Park and Ride: A Good Practice Guide, 2000’. In addition to this it is imperative that park and ride sites are able to offer comparable journey times with private car, though where combined with bus lanes, bus gates and conveniently located town or city centre bus stops it is possible for park and ride services to offer a distinct journey time advantage over the private car. Public transport priority measures can also assist regular services along the route. The service must provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the morning and afternoon peaks in demand, but a key criticism of park and ride is the wasted capacity as patronage tends to be concentrated in peak periods and primarily in one direction. A number of schemes have sought to combat this, in Oxford services traverse the city and, as such, cross-city journeys are possible by park and ride. Recent evidence suggests that cross-city journeys make up 10 - 15 per cent of park and ride patronage. In York a contra-flow is provided by students using the services to access York College, which is located opposite the Askham Bar site. This car park site also has a dual use as the site was funded as part of a land sale to Tesco for the development of a superstore. A further way to combat this wasted capacity is to tap into off peak markets such as tourists or shoppers; this can be achieved through partnerships with town centres to promote park and ride use for leisure trips. There are three possible ways of charging for park and ride: charge for bus journey, charge for parking or both. Approximately 70 sites in the UK have chosen the bus fare option while 11 sites charge for car parking. Three cities charge for both. The table below illustrates the costs and benefits for the different charging structures. Costs and benefits of alternative charging structures Costs and benefits of alternative charging structures Problems Park and ride schemes have been introduced mainly in answer to access issues in congested centres. Air pollution is also a concern in congested central areas and it is felt that park and ride may go some way to addressing these concerns through reducing the volume of traffic entering the central area. However, it is argued by some that park and ride reduces city centre mileage at the expense of additional mileage in rural and suburban areas, although this gives lesser concentrations of kerb-side pollution because of the dispersed nature of any additional traffic movements. Monitoring

- 288 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Due to the length of time some of the schemes have been running, comprehensive before and after monitoring is not always possible. Monitoring of more recent schemes looks at traffic flows on roads adjacent to the park and ride sites to establish the level of abstraction from the private car. Journey times are also monitored for both bus and private car. A number of schemes have conducted market research of park and ride users, to establish user profiles and areas for improving.

Scheme details Case study 1: Leicester
Description In 1997 Leicester introduced a park and ride site at Meynell’s Gorse to the west of Leicester, with comprehensive bus priorities in an inbound direction. The central objectives of this scheme were: increasing accessibility to the city centre; reducing peak hour journeys; reducing air pollution; and encouraging modal shift from cars to buses Meynell’s Gorse could originally accommodate just over 300 cars and was operating at capacity within three months of opening. The number of spaces has increased to 500, but the site still operates close to capacity. To prevent the car park being filled by commuters to the exclusion of shoppers and to reduce abstraction from local services in the off peak, two different methods of charging are employed. Up to 09.30 a return ticket costs £1.75 per person. An alternative charge of £2.20 per car is available after 09.30. This is also a reflection of high long stay parking costs and low car occupancy at peak times. The service runs every 10 minutes during peak hours and every 15 minutes in the off peak period. Normally hours of service are between 07.00 to 19.00 Monday to Saturday. Security is addressed at the site through the presence of an attendant for part of the day and the area is covered by CCTV. The bus route from the park and ride site to the city centre is direct. Private cars are able to access the city centre at the point where passengers from the park and ride bus alight; however the route by private car is slower and incurs higher parking charges. Cost The park and ride site is jointly funded by Leicestershire County Council and Leicester City Council (approximately 33 per cent to 67 per cent respectively). The city council manages the car park, while the county council manages the bus services contract. Bus operator

- 289 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The service is operated by Arriva. Monitoring results Although no scheme specific data was collected before implementation, comparisons have been made with pre-study traffic flow data and data from monitoring conducted in 1998, after implementation. The most significant observations are as follows: 190 fewer cars were entering the city in the morning peak along the A47. Previously 900 cars per hour were entering the city along this route; park and ride buses were able to complete the journey quicker than the private car. Bus journey times improved by approximately 5 minutes while car journey times remained the same; the reliability of journeys by bus improved with the standard deviation of journey times dropping from 4.9 to 2.7 minutes for the inbound journey and 6 to 2.6 minutes in the outbound journey; 63 per cent of park and ride users previously made their journey by car; a quarter of respondents used park and ride 2 - 4 days per week while just under a quarter (23 per cent) used park and ride on a daily basis; 34 per cent of park and ride users were making more journeys to Leicester since the introduction of park and ride. This supports the argument that park and ride schemes reduce the generalised cost of travel for some users and as a consequence generate extra trips to the centre; and 65 per cent of users were female. A comparison of patronage over time is not possible due to the two systems of charging operating in the peak and off peak. However an analysis of revenue reveals patronage increased on bus services in the corridor which is illustrated in the table below: Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 10 -2 4

% Increase in patronage 49 Source: TAS (2003)

The reduction in growth shown in the table is thought to be a reflection of the site nearing capacity.

Scheme details Case study 2: Chester
Description Chester’s first park and ride site opened in 1983 with the original objective of reducing congestion in central Chester. A later transport study identified three further objectives, which are to: ensure that there is no increase in city centre parking facilities; encourage long stay and commuter parking to use park and ride sites; and continue the policy of expanding park and ride sites, aiming for an extra 1,000-1,500 spaces by 2011.

- 290 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The Chester scheme includes four sites; Broughton Heath, Sealand Road, Upton and Wrexham Road. All are staffed by an attendant throughout the day, with the presence of automated ticket issuing machines. All sites are also monitored using CCTV. The site charges for the bus journey rather than the parking, thus avoiding VAT complications. This has the added advantage of marketing the sites as having ’free parking’. Also, there are faster loading times and a reduced security risk for the driver because ticketing is off-bus. The park and ride bus route allows access to the city centre by the most direct route, which is not available to those accessing the centre by private car. This is combined with bus priority measures on radial routes to ensure that bus journey times are at least as quick as travelling by private car. There are a number of drop off and pick up points in Chester city allowing the services to achieve maximum city centre penetration. Bus operator The emergence of a series of tender options allowed a single operator to bid for all four site contracts together. Whilst this was not a specific aim, it has proved to have some advantages. Chester City Transport has been appointed as the operator. There has been little evidence of park and ride services abstracting passengers from local services, although there is anecdotal evidence that a small number of local residents are walking to the site and using the service. Monitoring results The increase in usage of park and ride in Chester is illustrated in the table below. It is noticeable that again growth rates have reduced as the car parks have neared capacity. Park and ride now accounts for 44 per cent of car parking in Chester (excluding on street parking, office parking and non council controlled car parks). Results Conclusions Discussion points connected with the development of park and ride sites include the use of green field land for the parking facilities. This often generates concern about environmental impact, which should be set against the beneficial impact of reducing pollution from traffic into the town/city centre. There is also debate as to whether a park and ride site results in a greater or lesser use of non park and ride public transport services. Abstraction rates can range from 10 to 28 per cent, depending upon a number of factors, including the quality and frequency of the local service. A number of schemes have failed to produce any decongestion benefits. This may be a result of previously suppressed demand that has refilled road space made available by the park and ride scheme. Park and ride sites may also have a negative impact by attracting people who previously made the whole journey by public transport. This might create capacity for other new journeys within the urban area, whilst conversely reducing patronage on marginal rural bus services.

- 291 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Although commercial viability tends not to be a key objective in park and ride strategy at the outset, a number of schemes have progressed over time into commercially run services. Park and ride generally requires frequent investment with vehicles tending to be replaced midlife. One of the incidental benefits of this is that these higher quality vehicles which were introduced to attract the private car user have now been transferred to local services.

The future
Many existing park and ride sites are looking to combine with more radical bus priority measures. In the case of Oxford this is the Expressway - a guided bus route and in Nottingham two park and ride sites which were originally bus based are now part of the rapid transit system. More recently established schemes are looking at potential for new sites and ways of increasing the capacity of the original network. Leicester, for example, is currently looking to add three new sites (2,500 car parking spaces) on routes into the city with associated bus lanes and signal priority.

References
English Historic Towns Forum, Bus-based park and ride - A Good Practice Guide, 2000. Oxfordshire County Council Good Practice Guides: www.oxfordshire.gov.uk. Parkhurst, G, Environmental cost - benefit of bus based park and ride systems, University of London Centre for Transport Studies, ESRC Transport Studies Unit, 1999. TAS, Park and Ride Great Britain 2003, TAS Publications and Events Ltd, 2003.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Cheshire County Council, Chester City Council, Leicester City Council, Oxfordshire County Council, York City Council and TAS. Other examples Nottingham Contact the Parking department at Nottingham City Council for further information on: 0115 9155555. Oxford Contact the Environment and Economy department for further information on: 01865 815700. York Contact the Environment and Development Services department for further information on: 01904 613161.

- 292 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Further information
Further information on park and ride in Chester can be obtained from: Environment and Sustainability Department Cheshire County Council County Hall Chester Cheshire CH1 1SF 0845 113331 Further information on park and ride in Leicester can be obtained from the Public Transport Co-ordinator at Leicester City Council on: 0116 2232111.

The bus stop environment
Description of need
Background Traffic congestion is not the only cause of delay to buses. The length of time that buses stand at bus stops can be a substantial component of overall journey time. Dwell time at bus stops has two main components - the time taken for passengers to board and alight, and delay in re-entering the flow of traffic where buses have stopped in lay-bys or at bus stops where the traffic stream can overtake with ease. Any measure that reduces delay and time spent at bus stops, or improves the environment for people waiting at bus stops, will make the bus a more attractive travel choice. This is the first of two case studies in which consideration is given to measures that complement bus priority. In this case study consideration is given to measures designed to help buses rejoin the main stream of traffic and to make the bus stop environment more attractive to users. Objectives The primary objective of the measures considered in this case study is to help to make travel by bus more attractive. A scheme to enable buses to move away from a bus stop and back into the traffic stream will contribute towards reducing journey times and improving reliability. Improvements to the environment at bus stops can contribute in a variety of ways; by making the waiting area safer and more attractive and by improving accessibility, for example. Implementation of complementary measures at bus stops will add to the impact of schemes to provide priority for buses.

- 293 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Infrastructure measures
Problems Over time, many bus stops have been located in bus bays to enable other traffic to overtake safely buses picking up or setting down passengers at bus stops. Whilst this is a valid objective, it does result in delay to buses attempting to emerge from lay-bys and rejoin the main traffic stream because drivers of other vehicles are commonly reluctant to give way to buses. It is a particular problem in congested conditions. This problem has also led some bus drivers to avoid stopping at the kerb at bus stops in bus bays in order to make it easier to re-enter the traffic stream. This, in turn, led to problems of accessibility for elderly and disabled people because of the need to step down into the carriageway and step up on to the platform or first step of the bus. It also has the effect of increasing bus boarding and alighting times.

Solutions
Filled bus lay-bys One approach is to pave or infill the bus bay in order to re-create a flush kerb at which the bus stops in the nearside traffic lane. This is intended to enable the bus to resume its route without delay. An ancillary advantage is that this may provide more space for improved waiting facilities at the bus stop, including better quality shelters and seating. This does carry the possibility of delay to other traffic, particularly if the traffic lane is not wide enough to permit overtaking or if a second lane is not available. However, the bus is able to keep its place in the traffic stream and it helps to ensure that bus journey times are comparable with car. It is important to consider safety and operational issues, such as, is the stop to be used as a layover point or service terminus, which may result in unnecessary delay to other vehicles. Before and after surveys were undertaken by TRL in London during 2002 and 2003 using video surveys and automatic traffic counts to monitor traffic flows, journey times and vehicle delays. The effect of filling lay-bys was to reduce passenger boarding times by between 0.5 and 1 second per passenger. Delay at the bus stops decreased by between 2 seconds on a road operating at 50 per cent of capacity and 4 seconds on a road at 70 per cent of capacity. Traffic delays increased by up to 11 seconds per vehicle on a one-lane road and 2 seconds on a two-lane road, but economic assessments based on the ’Bus Journey Time Savings’ spreadsheet produced by Transport for London (TfL) showed that the overall benefits to bus passengers outweighed the disadvantage to other road users by a ratio of more than 5 to 1. Bus lay-bys in bus lanes One situation where bus lay-bys are still being implemented is on bus lanes. This is particularly relevant in a bus lane with high frequency services running on it or where not all services call at all stops. A stationary bus in the bus lane waiting for passengers to board and alight would cause delays to services behind it that do not need to stop. If the bus were to be able to pull into a lay-by other services would be able to continue their journeys unimpeded. In such circumstances, the problem of pulling away from the bus stop is minimised because the bus is pulling out into a bus lane.

- 294 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus boarders Unrestricted or illegal parking often prevents buses reaching stops or aligning correctly with the kerb to ensure close and level boarding. Extending the footway out into the nearside lane to create a boarding and alighting platform, a bus boarder, may help to remove these sources of delay and to improve safety for passengers. Provision of a raised kerb at a bus boarder can be a further deterrent to obstructive car parking or stopping to pick up or set down passengers. Other vehicles may park in the lee of the boarder, but the position of the bus in the main flow is maintained and passengers may have easier access to the bus. Clearly, road width needs to be sufficient to permit the construction of a boarder without the possibility of a stopped bus blocking the passage of oncoming vehicles or without causing unacceptable delay to following traffic. The Department for Transport document "Inclusive Mobility" outlines that there are two types of bus boarder available: full width protruding into the carriage so that the bus avoids parked vehicles (approximately 1800 millimetres); and half width between 500 millimetres and 1500 millimetres wide providing a compromise between a full boarder and no boarder at all. These are appropriate for use where a full boarder would cause unacceptable delay to other vehicles or where the bus is too close to traffic coming in the opposite direction on the carriageway. Before and after surveys were undertaken by TRL in London in conjunction with TfL throughout 2003 for bus boarders including daytime video surveys and automatic traffic counts to monitor journey times and vehicle delays. On average, bus delays fell by between 1.3 seconds on a road operating at 50 per cent of capacity and 1.8 seconds on a road at 70 per cent of capacity. Delays behind the bus increased by up to an average of 4.2 seconds per vehicle. Economic assessments based on ’Bus Journey Time Savings’ in this case indicated that bus boarders had a positive effect on low flow roads, but that benefit might be cancelled out by the delay to other traffic on high flow roads. It was estimated that roads operating at more than about 50 per cent of capacity might suffer a disadvantageous effect, while wider roads could potentially reduce the delay to other vehicles because of the greater possibility of passing the bus. However, note should also be taken of the width of the road and accessibility benefits to passengers. Increased accessibility to the bus was probably undervalued because, while reductions in stop time as a result of reduced boarding times were noticeable, no account was taken of the effects of increased accessibility for disabled passengers. Raised kerbs Improvements in accessibility at stops by installing raised kerbs and enabling the bus to kerb correctly not only addresses the issues of social exclusion by providing access for those with mobility impairments, but also enables quicker loading times to be achieved. Wheelchair users maybe able to board buses directly without using a ramp. The Department for Transport document "Inclusive Mobility" states that standard kerb heights range from 125 millimetres to 140 millimetres. Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive in the "Bus Stop Design Guidelines" suggests a kerb height of 160 millimetres provides the best compromise between accessibility while minimising damage to buses.

- 295 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The Greater Manchester design guidelines also outlines the minimum lengths for raised kerbs depending upon the number and frequency of services using the stop, they are as follows: 4 metres for a lightly used bus stops or stops that are only used for alighting; 7 metres for a single bus stop where only one bus will arrive at any one time; 16 metres at a double bus stop; 26 metres at a double bus stops used by standard 12 metres length buses and articulated buses; and the recommended length of raised kerb at bus boarders is 6 metres. Hull City Council has introduced raised kerbs at a number of its stops. However rather than installing a continuous length of raised kerb, double or triple boarders have been installed where two or more buses could be at the stop at the same time. Sections of raised kerb are separated by lengths of kerb of conventional height. Two or three buses are able to park close to the kerb providing full accessibility and loading simultaneously, whereas before the second or third bus would have had to wait for the previous bus to leave or not be able to pull in close to the kerb to stop.

Case study: Manchester bus stop treatment
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) consider bus stop design an integral part of any bus priority scheme. This includes the layout of the street furniture, street lighting, quality of the paving, information available at the stops and carriageway markings. The positioning of the stops is also important, the introduction of bus priority measures and quality bus corridors are an ideal time to review the location of stops on a route. GMPTE have produced design guidelines for bus stops on ’Quality Bus Corridors’. The guidelines include details of consultation and covers recommended minimum standards for elements such as footway layout and carriageway markings at bus stops. The recommended footway layout includes: a band of coloured and textured surface along the kerb edge; a rectangular block of colour at the boarding point; a band of coloured and textured surface at the end of each bus stop at right angles to the kerb; and remaining areas within the stop boundaries to be surfaced in a contrasting coloured textured material. In order to protect the bus stop area from illegal parking and allow the bus to access the stop unimpeded, GMPTE recommend bus stops are covered by a bus clearway order and 300 millimetres wide yellow box markings are applied around the bus stop clearway carriageway marking. In addition to this a red cordon is marked around the yellow box, this measure has been effective in highlighting the bus stop area and preventing indiscriminate parking. Carriageway markings, based on Design Guidelines for bus stops Carriageway markings, based on Design Guidelines for bus stops

- 296 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Conclusions
This leaflet has explored a number of improvement measures at bus stops that, in isolation, may only achieve a marginal benefit but, if implemented with new bus priority measures as part of a comprehensive scheme, can add to the impact of the overall scheme. A number of authorities including GMPTE have embraced a holistic approach to bus priority in which improvements to bus stop environment, layout and information provision are an integral part of a bus priority scheme.

References
DfT, Inclusive Mobility, November 2002. GMPTE, Design Guidelines for Bus Stops on Quality Bus Corridors in Greater Manchester, January 2002. TAS Partnership, Quality Bus Infrastructure a manual and guide, Landor Publishing and the TAS Partnership Ltd, June 2000.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Transport for London, TRL, Hull City Council and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive.

Other examples
Holistic approach: West Midlands Bus Showcase (see special initiative case study in this pack). Norwich Western Corridor Quality Bus Partnership; contact Norfolk County Council on 01603 222205.

Further information
Further information on issues covered in this leaflet can be obtained from: TfL: customerservice@tfl-bus.co.uk GMPTE Quality Bus Corridor team on 0161 2426000 (switchboard).

Other measures
This is the second of two case studies in which consideration is given to measures that complement bus priority. In this case study, the matters addressed are: the importance of complementary measures; ticketing initiatives to reduce bus boarding times; the operation of buses in pedestrian priority areas; issue relating to pedestrian crossings and the benefits of working in partnership. The importance of complementary measures Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) carried out research on the impact of a range of different measures that could be implemented to complement bus priority measures. Interviews were carried out on three corridors which had been treated holistically and on three control corridors not included in the Quality Bus Corridor programme.

- 297 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Respondents were asked to rate whether they felt various aspects of their service had got better, stayed the same or got worse since they started using the bus. The biggest difference was in faster journey times where 25 per cent of those questioned on treated routes felt that this aspect was improved compared with 8 per cent on routes which had not been treated. A greater proportion of respondents on treated routes also felt that the reliability of bus services had improved (22 per cent) compared with 11 per cent of those on non-treated routes. The responses are summarised below: Responses to research on the impact of a range of different measures that could be implemented to complement bus priority measures Ticketing strategies The problem On busy bus services a substantial proportion of bus journey time can be spent waiting at bus stops as passengers board or alight, purchase tickets and/or show their travel passes. At peak times on many urban routes buses can spend as long standing at bus stops as they do in congested traffic. This is a particular problem on Monday mornings in places where weekly tickets can be bought from the bus driver. Passengers paying with cash can take twice as long as those passengers with pre-paid tickets creating delays for passengers already on the bus and those waiting to board. Additional work is created for the driver who has to operate the ticket machine and dispense change where necessary; this creates training issues for the operator and security issues for the driver. The solution Traditional methods of reducing time spent at bus stops include flat or exact fare policies or the deployment of conductors on buses or at busy bus stops (queue conductors). There are several other ways in which bus boarding times can be reduced: ⢠promotion of pre-paid off-bus ticket sales; provision of ticket issuing machines at some or all bus stops; and application of smartcard technology to all passengers or to particular categories of passengers (e.g. schoolchildren, elderly/disabled pass holders). The Oxford Bus Company anticipates a 50 per cent reduction in bus boarding times through the introduction of smartcards in Autumn 2004.

Case study: Bradford Firstcard
First Bradford introduced a smartcard known as Firstcard on all first services in Bradford in April 2000. The scheme proved popular and achieved its first 10,000 users by August 2000. Passengers simply place the card on the ticket machine reader and tell the driver where they are alighting; they are then issued with a ticket which tells them the value remaining on their smart card. The success of the scheme was recognised at The Bus Industry Awards in 2000 where First received a runners up award for the project and its aim to provide an easier and more convenient method of payment for bus travel in Bradford.

- 298 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The tickets can be ordered over the telephone or on the internet and can be loaded or renewed at Metro travel centres or at the First office. BusMiles operates as a loyalty scheme in connection with Firstcard to encourage passengers to use the card.

Case study: Ticketing initiatives in London
Transport for London (TfL) has gone one step further and introduced cashless buses in the area bounded by Paddington, Kings Cross, Waterloo and Victoria. Passengers must purchase their ticket from a machine at the stop or have a travel card, bus pass, freedom pass or saver ticket. By removing cash transactions on the bus it was felt significant reductions could be made in dwell time at stops. This initiative is also combined with the introduction of ’bendy buses’ which are able to carry up to 140 people and have three boarding doors. Eventually it is expected that the scheme will be rolled out to suburban areas. TfL has also launched a smartcard known as the Oyster card which is a card the size of a credit card with a microchip. The card can be ordered on line and recharged on line, by telephone or at a tube station. The technology has been fitted to 6,000 buses, 255 underground stations and 28 national railway stations served by the underground. The aims of the scheme are to: improve customer service; provide better information about customers travel patterns; and reduce opportunities for fraud. The tickets have the added advantage of allowing faster movement through ticket gates and on to buses, speeding up the journey time. The ticket does not have to be removed from its wallet to be used; passengers simply press the card against the reader, which reads it within a fraction of a second. In mid-2004 there were approximately 1.9 million active Oyster cards and take-up of the cards is expected to increase as further Oyster products and discounts are introduced.

Bus access to pedestrian priority areas
The redevelopment and regeneration of many high streets has involved the exclusion of vehicles with the intention of creating safe and pleasant pedestrian priority areas (PPAs). However, in order to maintain good public access without generating extra peripheral car traffic, exceptions have been made in many PPAs to allow buses and taxis and, in some places, trams to enter the zone. This allows public transport penetration of urban centres with central bus stops providing a realistic alternative to city centre parking. The design of PPAs and the extent to which a roadway has been maintained is highly variable. The flow of public transport and delivery vehicles may determine pedestrians’ perception of safety and their consequent tendency to wander freely throughout the PPA, rather than maintaining their conventional position on the footways. Allowing buses into a PPA needs very careful consideration to avoid damaging the environment that shoppers expect. Quality of the shopping environment can affect the choice of shopping centre, especially when there are nearby competing centres, and length of stay; both of which are important in maintaining the shopping street’s vitality and viability.

- 299 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Zebra, pelican & puffin crossings
The provision of safe crossing facilities close to bus stops is a vital component of traffic management, road safety and bus priority schemes. It is generally accepted that pedestrians require assistance when crossing busy roads in safety and the zebra crossing has been a successful means of reconciling the conflicting demands of vehicular traffic and pedestrians for many years. However, where pedestrian flows are heavy or traffic speeds are high, zebra crossings may either impose inconvenient delay on vehicles, including buses, or become unsafe for pedestrians. Pelican crossings were designed to address this situation and to maintain traffic movements while providing extra protection for pedestrians. Puffin crossings are a refinement that seeks to minimise the potential delay to vehicles of a pelican crossing by reacting to the presence of a pedestrian on the crossing rather than holding traffic at a red signal when no pedestrians are present. Signalised crossings protect pedestrians more effectively than zebras, while minimising the delay to vehicles and hence assisting buses to maintain their schedules. Where possible, bus stops should be downstream of pedestrian crossings to reduce the amount of delay experienced by bus passengers. Before and after surveys were conducted during 2002 and 2003 by TRL in London. Overall traffic delays decreased when a pelican crossing was introduced at three study sites with the lowest pedestrian flow, but increased at the fourth site where flows were higher. Modelling indicated that vehicles were delayed less at pelicans then zebras when pedestrian flows were less than 60 per hour. However traffic delays appeared shorter at zebra crossings with medium pedestrian flows.

Holistic approach - quality partnerships
Quality Bus Partnerships (QBPs) are formal or informal agreements between local authorities, bus operators and other relevant parties to provide an agreed level of quality of service and infrastructure along a certain route or routes. Alternatively, they may be a more general agreement relating to the general service or infrastructure provision. QBPs are an efficient way of achieving strategic objectives of all those involved as they result in co-ordination of actions between relevant organisations and the exchange of information. Partnership working is essential where a holistic approach is proposed in order to ensure co-ordination of improvements to maximise impact. In some cases it may be possible to deliver all of the components of a scheme at once but, where schemes are complex and involve substantial investment in bus priority and route infrastructure phased implementation may be necessary. The local authority role in a Partnership is to deliver bus priority and traffic management schemes supported by complementary measures including accessibility at bus stops, improvements to the waiting environment and more comprehensive information for passengers. Local authorities also have the lead role in consultation during scheme development and implementation. The role of the bus operator is to invest in new high quality buses and in upgrading the quality or level of service. The level of improvement in reliability and journey times that can be achieved is governed, to a considerable extent, by the time savings that can be delivered by bus priority, traffic management and complementary measures. Marketing, promotion and monitoring are commonly joint responsibilities of local authorities and operators.

- 300 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

References
DfT, Inclusive Mobility, November 2002. TAS Partnership, Quality Bus Infrastructure a manual and guide, Landor Publishing and the TAS Partnership Ltd, June 2000.

Acknowledgements
This leaflet was produced with the assistance of Transport for London (TfL), TRL, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive and First Bradford.

Other examples
Ticketing strategies: Cheshire County Council Smartcard. Holistic approach: West Midlands Bus Showcase (see special initiative case study in this pack). Norwich Western Corridor Quality Bus Partnership; contact Norfolk County Council on: 01603 222205.

Further information
Further information on issues raised in this leaflet can be obtained from: TfL at customerservice@tfl-bus.co.uk

Performance indicators & monitoring
Why do we need to monitor performance?
Bus priority is central to improving the speed and reliability of services. Different techniques have been used across the country. We have to evaluate them to see how they: benefit bus operators and passengers; affect other road users; operate effectively; may need improving; and give value for money. It is important to test whether bus priority schemes have met their stated objectives, firstly to ensure local accountability, and secondly to see whether the same type of scheme would work in similar circumstances elsewhere. This is particularly important where innovative bus priority measures are being tried for the first time. Performance indicators assess important aspects of a new scheme. They allow us to judge whether it has benefited bus users or whether the scheme needs to be modified. Performance indicators from different schemes can also provide stakeholders with evidence of what works. This will help with the continued development of bus priority.

- 301 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Monitoring statistics should be straightforward and easy to collect, and should form the basis of useful performance indicators. Monitoring resources should be proportionate to the overall cost of the scheme. They should also be built into the scheme costs early in the planning and appraisal stage. ’Before’ and ’after’ monitoring may necessarily be limited for smaller schemes. More complex schemes may need a wider programme of monitoring. Bus priority performance indicators and monitoring Bus priority performance indicators and monitoring Different types of bus priority scheme require specific monitoring methods. The full range of monitoring parameters and performance indicators is shown below. These can be used to assess different bus priority schemes, although only a subset of them would be required to investigate any given scheme. In general the scale and type of monitoring should relate to what a particular measure aims to achieve. Core and additional monitoring parameters Core and additional monitoring parameters We can distinguish between core and additional monitoring parameters and performance indicators. Core indicators are the minimum that should be collected, and additional indicators are those that could help explain further how the scheme is performing. Six core indicators are described below.

Bus service improvements
Bus journey times Buses can be timed along a section of a route both before and after schemes are implemented. Bus journey times are likely to reduce as a result of bus priority measures. Sample sizes will depend on the variability of the bus journey time and the expected benefit. Reliability One of the main factors in passenger perception of bus services is reliability. This performance indicator records the difference between timetabled and actual arrival times at one or more points in the scheme on low frequency routes. This shows any improvements in reliability. On higher frequency routes, the variation in headways (the interval between consecutive buses travelling on a route) can be used.

Improvements for passengers
Bus use trends Better bus services can attract people from other forms of transport or encourage people to use the bus for trips they might otherwise not have taken. This increases bus patronage. Any changes need to be seen in context with the underlying trends in the area.

- 302 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The most appropriate way to assess the effect of bus priority schemes on patronage is by carrying out ’before’ and ’after’ surveys. For smaller schemes, it may be enough to simply compare ticket sales on a route that has benefited from bus priority measures with sales on one that hasn’t. Bus stop waiting times The time it takes to pick up and drop off passengers is a significant proportion of the total journey time. Clearly this will relate to the number of passengers getting on and off. So if bus passenger numbers increase, buses are likely to spend longer at bus stops. As a result, some journey time saving from bus priority measures may not be fully realised.

Effects on other traffic
Car journey times Car journey times can be measured to see whether bus priority has caused any significant delays. The main technique for this is matching the number plates of vehicles travelling in a corridor between two or more fixed points. Car, lorry and cycle counts We can measure the levels of different types of traffic such as cars, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), light goods vehicles (LGVs), buses and cycles. Traffic flows can reveal whether vehicles are switching to alternative routes and, in some cases, the extent to which motorists are switching to buses. However, only detailed surveys can reveal the underlying reasons for any change.

An example approach
Bus priority strategy Improve bus service reliability. Improve bus speeds. Increase patronage. Reduce car dependency. Improve bus services. Provide value for money. Targets (5 Years) Improve reliability 15 per cent. Faster bus speeds 10 per cent. Increase patronage 20 per cent. Reduce congestion 20 per cent. Implement three quality corridors.

- 303 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Action plan Introduce on-street bus priority (with-flow bus lanes). Innovative methods (contra-flow bus lanes). Innovative methods (traffic signal priority). New wheelchair accessible buses. High quality bus stop facilities. Enhanced pedestrian facilities to access bus stops. Monitoring Bus/car journey times. Car journey times on parallel routes. Queue length surveys. Bus reliability surveys. Traffic counts for area. Number of bus passengers. Bus stop dwell times. Results Two corridors implemented, third delayed by longer than anticipated consultation process. Reliability, journey time and patronage targets on the two implemented corridors met or exceeded. Congestion targets not met: revisions made to signal timings on parallel routes.

Frequently asked questions
The following questions are typical of those that people frequently ask during public consultation on bus priority measures. You could adapt the questions and suggested answers to suit your own public consultation. Remember that this is not a definitive list of questions and it obviously cannot deal with specific schemes. You may need to add information about your proposed scheme and it may also be useful to include details of the number of buses using different routes, and the numbers of passengers that they carry.

Residents
Why should residents like me care about bus priority? Bus priority would bring welcome benefits to you, your neighbours and your community as a whole. Bus priority helps make buses faster and more reliable, so more people are likely to use them. This in turn will lead to less congestion and pollution in your area. You may even choose to use the bus, avoiding the stresses of driving and parking.

- 304 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

There is no need for a bus lane at this location. I drive along this road everyday and there are rarely any delays. Why can’t you leave things as they are? Buses are used most during the morning and afternoon peak hours, which is not necessarily when local residents use the roads. Before we develop proposals for bus priority, we carry out traffic surveys to find where delays occur and how severe they are. Delays often reduce the interval between buses, causing them to ’bunch’. Then several arrive at once after a long wait for people at the bus stop. You are planning to install a bus lane near my house. I am concerned about the loss of resident parking in the area. Where am I going to park? We will balance the need for resident parking with the operating hours of the bus lane. If the bus priority improvements affect parking facilities in your area, we will do everything practical to provide alternatives. You are planning to install a bus lane outside my house. The road is already very congested and will your proposals not make the problem worse? We hope the bus lane will make the situation better. You are right to be concerned about congestion and, if we do nothing, the problem will certainly get worse: traffic is predicted to increase by another 30 per cent over the next 10 years. We can’t widen your road (and we’re sure you wouldn’t want us to) so a bus lane is the best way to cut congestion. I live on a side street next to where the bus lane is proposed. I am concerned that it will make it difficult and possibly dangerous to turn into my street. Any bus lanes we introduce will be designed to allow traffic to continue making any manoeuvres and turns that they make at the moment. What’s more, all bus lanes are designed according to stringent Government guidelines which have been fully vetted for safety. Independent safety experts also carefully examine all bus lane proposals before they are implemented. So any safety concerns will be fully investigated before any work begins. I regularly use the road where you propose putting a bus lane and I see far fewer buses than other types of vehicle. Why should traffic be further delayed for the low number of buses that use the road? On average, a typical double decker bus can carry as many people as 55 cars. It therefore makes sense to give buses greater priority to complete their journeys faster and more reliably. This will help make buses more attractive and encourage people to switch from car to bus. More bus use and less car use will help cut congestion and pollution in your area. You are planning to install a bus lane near where I live. Will this turn my road into a ’rat run’ for cars? If it seems likely that your road will become a ’rat run’ for cars, then we will look at introducing appropriate traffic management measures in consultation with your local community to prevent this. Which vehicles are allowed to use bus lanes and when?

- 305 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Bus lanes need to be clearly signed to help people understand who can legally use them and when. Signs are required at the start of a bus lane, after each junction and at intervals along sections of road where there are no junctions. These signs show which vehicles can use a bus lane. Typically buses and cyclists only can use bus lanes. Taxis are frequently allowed to use them too. The signs also give the bus lane’s hours of operation. This might be during the weekday (Monday to Friday) peak hours only (e.g. 7.00am to 10.00am) or for a longer period (e.g. 7.00am to 7.00pm). Where there is a need to do so, 24 hour bus lanes can be introduced. During the hours of operation only vehicles identified on the signs can use a bus lane. Outside of these hours, all traffic can use a bus lane. Buses are large, noisy vehicles. Does the bus lane mean that I must look forward to an increase in heavy traffic, noises and emissions near my house? Buses come in a range of shapes and sizes. They range from small hopper buses up to large double decker buses to meet high demand on busy routes. New buses today are much quieter than they were ten years ago as a result of legislation limiting noise levels. Buses are increasingly fuel-efficient and ’green and clean’. European legislation is imposing increasingly strict limits on vehicle emissions. Most bus operators have more new buses that produce lower levels of noise and pollution. New quieter and less-polluting buses are usually introduced where local councils and bus operators set up Quality Bus Partnerships to give priority to buses. Bus priority measures, such as bus lanes, help deliver faster, more reliable bus services. More attractive bus services encourage people to switch from car to bus use and this, in turn, will help reduce congestion in your local area.

Commerce
Why should local companies care about bus priority? Bus priority helps to make local bus services faster and more reliable, which will make them more attractive to both your employees and customers. More bus use and less car use will result in less congestion and leave more road space for transporting goods and services. Your company may wish to develop a travel plan for your employees to encourage them to catch the bus or use other forms of sustainable transport (e.g. cycle). An effective travel plan has real benefits: a less problematic, stressful journey to work; improvements in health for employees who walk and/or cycle more and the opportunity to reuse space in the workplace currently used for staff car parking. There is no need for a bus lane here. Why can’t you leave things as they are? If we do nothing, it is estimated that traffic volumes nationally will increase by 28 per cent by the year 2011, and by 60 per cent by the year 2031. It is also estimated that congestion costs companies that transport freight approximately £1.2 billion a year. Clearly we have to do something. Encouraging people to leave the car at home and catch the bus is one practical solution. Before we develop any proposals for bus priority, we survey the traffic along the route to see where delays occur and how severe they are. Local bus operators also provide crucial information on delays to their services. If there is evidence that buses are being held up by congestion, then bus priority measures are likely to be needed.

- 306 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

You are planning to install a bus lane near our company. I am concerned about the loss of parking in the area. Where are our employees going to park? The bus lane’s operating hours will be balanced with the local need for parking. If bus priority measures affect parking facilities in your area, we will look at providing alternative arrangements. However, we hope that by making bus services more reliable, more people will choose to use them to travel to and from work, including your employees. This will clearly solve some local parking problems and help reduce the conflicts that can occur when people park on residential roads while they are at work. I am in charge of arranging deliveries for my company. How am I going to arrange deliveries when a bus lane will mean extra loading restrictions? We will do everything we can to maintain loading facilities in your area to support local businesses. The bus lane restrictions are likely to permit loading in the middle of the day, outside the peak hours. Alternatively, we will do what we can to replace existing loading areas with alternative facilities in your area. However, as the demand for road space continues to grow, it may be necessary for deliveries to be made outside normal working hours.

Industry
Why should local industry care about bus priority? If we do nothing, it is estimated that traffic volumes nationally will increase by 28 per cent by the year 2011, and by 60 per cent by the year 2031. It is also estimated that congestion costs companies that transport freight approximately £1.2 billion a year. Clearly we have to do something. Encouraging people to leave the car at home and catch the bus is one practical response. Bus priority helps to make local bus services faster and more reliable, which will make them more attractive to both your employees and customers. More bus use and less car use will result in less congestion and leave more road space for transporting goods and services. Your company may wish to develop a travel plan for your employees to encourage them to catch the bus or use other forms of sustainable transport (e.g. cycle). An effective travel plan has real benefits: a less problematic, stressful journey to work; improvements in health for employees who walk and/or cycle more and the opportunity to re-use space in the workplace currently used for staff car parking. There is no need for a bus lane here. Why can’t you leave things how as are? Before we develop any proposals for bus priority, we survey the traffic along the route to see where delays occur and how severe they are. Local bus operators also provide crucial information on delays to their services. If there is evidence that buses are being held up by congestion, then bus priority measures are likely to be needed. I am the human resources manager at a large warehouse. How will the bus lane proposals affect employee parking in the area?

- 307 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The bus lane’s operating hours will be balanced with the local need for parking. If bus priority measures affect parking facilities in your area, we will look at providing alternative arrangements. However, we hope that by making bus services more reliable, more people will choose to use them to travel to and from work, including your employees. This will clearly solve some local parking problems and help reduce the conflicts that can happen when people park on residential roads while they are at work. There is also a business case for reducing the number of car parking spaces. Each parking space is estimated to cost £500 a year, before taking into account the loss of that space for a more productive use. This is why companies like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithkline and Boots have developed effective travel plans which aim to reduce their employees’ reliance on the car and make best possible use of their sites.

Signs & regulations
Introduction
Road markings and signs serve an important function in conveying clear and consistent information and requirements to all road users. They must be used in combination and in line with current guidance in order to promote road safety and efficient traffic flow. Use of the most appropriate signs and markings will also improve the streetscape, minimising street clutter and encouraging adherence to regulations. This leaflet identifies enforceable signs and markings for bus lanes. Information on both with-flow and contra-flow lanes are provided, including examples of signs and road markings for a range of common design scenarios. The content of this document is based upon The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and is correct at the time of publishing. It is essential that the latest version of this, and the Traffic Signs Manual, is referred to in order to ensure that schemes are developed in accordance with current regulations.

With-flow bus lanes
With-flow bus lanes, where buses travel in the same direction as the traffic in the adjacent lane is the most common bus priority measure. A with-flow bus lane is normally placed on the near side of the road. The diagram to the below shows a layout (without pedestrian crossings) for a with-flow lane reserved for buses and cycles, showing both the signing and the road markings. With-flow bus lanes Signing If a with-flow bus lane which is also used by pedal cycles and can be used by taxis, is located ahead, the sign to diagram 958 should be used, varied as appropriate (ie to include or not "taxi"). It is located 30 metres in advance of the taper when the 85th percentile approach speed does not exceed 30mph, and 45 metres when this speed exceeds 30mph. The sign needs to be sited so it is clearly visible from 30 metres

- 308 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

for the lower speed, and 45 metres for higher speeds. The sign to diagram 959 should be used in conjunction with the road marking ’BUS LANE’. The sign should appear at the commencement of the bus lane and at intervals not exceeding 300 metres along uninterrupted lengths of the lane. It is also used after each junction that the bus lane breaks for. If there is a junction ahead where the left hand lane is dedicated to buses only and left turning vehicles need to use the lane, then the sign to diagram 877 should be used. On primary routes the background colour of the sign should be varied to green with white symbols and borders. For the end of a bus lane, the sign shown to diagram 964 should be used. Diagram 962 should be placed on side roads from which traffic may emerge. The arrow indicates which direction the bus lane is flowing. When there are bus lanes in both directions the arrow is removed and "lane" varied to "lanes". The bus symbol may be varied to the local bus symbol on all signs with blue background.

Road markings
Bus lanes are separated from the main carriageway by a marking to diagram 1049. The width of these markings is either 250 or 300mm depending on the site conditions. The start of the bus lane is marked with diagram 1010 at the same width as 1049, and laid at a taper no sharper than 1:10. The road marking ’BUS LANE’ to diagram 1048 should appear at the commencement of the bus lane and at intervals not exceeding 300 metres along uninterrupted lengths of the lane. It should also be used where the bus lane continues after a junction. The deflection arrows to diagram 1014 should be placed at two positions (15m and 30m) upstream of the taper. When the bus lane passes a junction with a major left turn into a side road, the boundary line of the bus lane should be replaced with a broken line to diagram 1010. This should commence 30m in advance of the junction. The broken line should be accompanied by the advisory direction arrow (diagram 1050) varied to show a left turn. At other junctions, the boundary line (diagram 1049) marking should be terminated approximately 10m before the junction and recommence beyond the junction in combination with a marking to diagram 1010.

Contra-flow bus lanes
Contra-flow bus lanes allow buses to travel against the main direction of traffic flow. Cyclists may be allowed to use contra-flow bus lanes. If cyclists are allowed to use a particular contra-flow bus lane, then the cycle symbol must be shown on both the appropriate signs and the lane markings.

- 309 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

The figure here shows an example of a contra-flow layout, showing both the signing and lane markings for buses only. Contra-flow bus lanes Signing On the approach to a contra-flow bus lane, the sign to diagram 877 should be used to advise all other vehicles that there is no entry to the bus lane ahead. The start of a contra-flow lane is signed by using the sign to diagram 953 (with or without a cycle symbol, as appropriate) and diagram 953.2. These signs are repeated after every break in the bus lane and at junctions. The sign to diagram 960 should be located so that it can be viewed by traffic travelling in the opposite direction to the contra-flow bus lane. This is also repeated at every break in the bus lane for junctions. A white cycle symbol may be added below the bus symbol and the downward pointing arrow moved across to the right (see DfT working drawing P960). The bus symbol may be varied to the local bus symbol on all signs with a blue background. Advance information should always be given to traffic entering from side roads, using the sign to diagram 962 along with diagram 609. At the junction of side roads the sign to diagram 606 is used. If buses are exempt from the left only turn then both diagram 609 and diagram 606 are supplemented with a sign to diagram 954, 954.2 or 954.3 At pedestrian crossing places, ’BUS LANE LOOK LEFT / LOOK RIGHT’ signs to diagram 963 should be used. These are pedestrian signs and therefore face the footways.

Road markings
The road markings for a contra-flow lane reserved for buses are shown here. The bus lane is separated from the rest of the carriageway by the continuous line prescribed in diagram 1049. The marking should be discontinued where it passes traffic islands and angled to guide vehicles from each direction to pass the obstruction. At junctions on the near side of the road, the bus lane should be discontinued. However, a broken line is not necessary on the approach to a junction since there will be no left turning traffic, except possibly buses. Bus lane markings (either diagram 1048.1 or 1048) together with direction arrows to diagram 1038 should appear at both ends of the lane so that they can be read by drivers approaching the contra-flow lane. The direction of possible traffic movements at the end of a bus lane is indicated by diagram 1050.

- 310 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Coloured road surfaces
Bus lanes may be surfaced in coloured material in order to emphasise their presence and discourage encroachment by other vehicles. However, coloured surfacing has no legal significance; it is the prescribed traffic signs and road markings which establish the legal status of a bus lane. Traffic signs Bus lanes at pedestrian crossings Not all authorities seem to be aware that bus lane markings are not permitted within the controlled area of a pedestrian crossing. A bus lane must be terminated at the start of the ziz-zags and may pick up again at the end of the zig-zags on the far side of the crossing. If the road surface is coloured for the bus lane, this may be continued through the controlled area (marked with zig-zags). If a coloured surface has been used for a bus lane, this may be continued through the controlled area (although not through the crossing itself).

24 hour Bus Lanes
For most 24 hour bus lanes the signs to diagrams 958 and 959 do not require time plates. The time plates are only used where a 24 hour bus lane is not far from another lane that shows times of operation less than 24 hours.

Bus gates
Bus gates restrict entry at one end of a street to buses only. The entrance to a bus gate should be marked with diagram 1048.3 BUS ONLY or 1048.4 BUS AND (cycle symbol) ONLY (permitted variant is of 1048.4 is to include "Taxi").

Waiting and loading restrictions
The order creating a bus lane will prohibit waiting during its operational hours. Yellow lines are necessary only if the waiting restrictions cover some period when the bus lane is not in operation. Loading and unloading is permitted unless it is specifically prohibited, in which case kerb marks and corresponding upright signs are required.

Common problems and mistakes in bus priority signing
A common mistake is to put a cycle symbol in the marking for a with-flow bus lane. This is unlawful, as diagram 1048.1 may only be used in contra-flow lanes in order to indicate those where cyclists are admitted. Cyclists are always allowed to use with-flow bus lanes as indicated on diagram 958 / 959. It is considered to be dangerous to keep them outside between buses and other traffic. If a bus lane is placed on the right hand side of the road, or anywhere other than the near side of the road, signs will require special authorisation.

- 311 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Prohibited combinations of plates with no entry sign
The combination of the no entry sign (diagram 616) with any of the plates to diagrams 954.3, 954.6 or 954.7 as shown here, is prohibited in the Regulations (TSRGD, 2002) and must not be used. Prohibited combinations of plates with no entry sign References LTN1 / 97 Keeping Buses Moving. (ISBN 0-11-551914-9), TSO, 1997. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. 2002 SI 2002 No. 3113, TSO, 2002. Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5, TSO, 2003. Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, TSO, 1986.

Bibliography
Astrop AJ, Balcombe RJ and Daugherty GG (1997 not published). The Performance of Bus Priority Measures in Brighton. PR/TT/024/97. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Astrop AJ and Balcombe RJ (1995). Performance of Bus Priority Measures in Shepherds Bush. TRL140. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Balcombe R and York I (1999). Bus Priority: Monitoring and Evaluation. TRL Annual Research Review 1998 pp. 18 - 23. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Bowen GT (1997). Bus Priority in SCOOT. TRL Report 255. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Bus Priority and Traffic Unit (1999). Bus Priority Measures. Annual Review 1999. DETR. CENTRO (1994). Bus Priority Monitoring Report: Appraisal Section. CENTRO, Birmingham. Cleveland County Council (1995). Bus Priority Measures in Central Middlesborough - Effects of the New Traffic Arrangements. Department of Environment, Development and Transportation, Cleveland County Council.

- 312 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Cloke J and Hopkin J (TRL); Hounsell NB and Lyons G (Southampton University) (2000). Monitoring and Evaluation of the ENTRANCE Project in Hampshire - Summary Report. TRL Report 415. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 2000. Commission for Integrated Transport (2002). Public Attitudes to Transport in England. A survey carried out by MORI. Daugherty GG and Balcombe RJ (1999). Leeds Guided Busway Study. TRL410. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Daugherty GG, Balcombe RJ and Astrop AJ (1999). A Comparative Assessment of Major Bus Priority Schemes in Great Britain. TRL Report 409. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. DETR (March 2003). Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/03. Public Transport Priority. Traffic Advisory Unit. DETR (April 2001). Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/01. Bus Priority. Traffic Advisory Unit. DETR (December 2000). Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/00. Bus Priority in SCOOT. Traffic Advisory Unit. DETR (1999). From Workhorse to Thoroughbred. A Better Role for Bus Travel. DETR. DETR (April 1997). Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/97. Rising Bollards. Traffic Advisory Unit. DETR (January 1997). Local Transport Note 1/97. Keeping Buses Moving: A Guide to Traffic Management to Assist Buses in Urban Areas. The Stationery Office. English Historic Towns Forum (May 2000). Bus-based Park and Ride. English Historic Towns Forum. Gardner K and Cobain P (1997). Bus Priorities: A Solution to Urban Congestion? Transport, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, v.123 n.4, November 1997, pp. 205 - 212. Gardener K and Metzger D (1997). Uxbridge Road bus priority demonstration project. Proceedings of Seminar K (Traffic Management and Road Safety), 25th PTRC European Transport Forum, pp. 63 - 74. Greater London Authority (June 2001). Improving London’s Bus Services: An Assembly investigation into the quality and performance of London’s Buses. GLA.

- 313 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Hounsell NB and McLeod F et al (2000). Headway-based bus priority in London using AVL - First results. 10th International Conference - Road Transport Information & Control, 4 - 6 April 2000, pp. 205 - 208. Hounsell NB and McLeod F et al (1996). PROMPT: Field Trial and simulation results of bus priority in SCOOT. 8th International Conference (IEE) on Road Traffic Monitoring and Control, 1996, pp. 90 - 94. Hounsell NB and McDonald M (1985 - 93). Evaluation of Bus Lanes. CR87. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Institution of Highways and Transportation (1997). Transport in the Urban Environment. Institution of Highways and Transportation. Chapter 24 Measures to Assist Public Transport, pp. 329 - 348. JMP Consultants Ltd. (2000). London Bus Priority Network. South West Sector, Bus Priority Study. Route 93 Monitoring Study. Final Report. London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. JMP Consultants Ltd. (1999). London Bus Priority Network. South West Sector, Bus Priority Study. Route 65 Monitoring Study. London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. King GN (London Transport Buses) (1998). Roads as "people movers": The Real Case for Bus Priority. Traffic Management and Safety. Proceedings of seminars J and K at the European Transport Conference, 1998 vol. p. 428. London Bus Initiative Partnership (2000). London Bus Initiative - Framework Document. London Bus Initiative Partnership. London Bus Initiative Partnership (2000). Bus Priority Literature Review. London Bus Initiative Partnership. London Bus Initiative Partnership (2000). Bus Stop Layouts for Low Floor Bus Accessibility. Transport for London. London Bus Initiative Partnership (2000). Bus Stop Layouts for Articulated Buses. Transport for London. Oakes JAJ, Thellmann AM and Kelly IT (1994). Innovative Bus Priority Measures. PTRC 22nd Summer Annual Meeting, Seminar J, 1994, pp. 301 - 312. Seaman D and Heggie N (1999). Comparative Evaluation of Greenways and Bus Priority Lanes. Traffic Management, Safety and Intelligent Transport Systems. Proceedings of Seminar D at the AET European Transport Conference 1999, Vol. P432 0115 - 32.

- 314 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

TEN (1998). Bus Priority and Traffic Management. Television Education Network, Session Guide. TEN. The TAS Partnership (2001). Quality Bus Partnership. Good Practice Guide. DETR - The TAS Partnership. Transport for London (2001). Bus Lane Enforcement. Transport for London. TRL Limited (2002). Bus Priority Measures Update 2000 - 2002. TRL Information Centre, Current topics in transport no. 19.3. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. TRL, University of Southampton and University of Portsmouth (1999). Monitoring and Evaluation of a Public Transport Priority Scheme in Southampton. TRL413. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, 1999. WS Atkins (East Anglia 1997). A1309 Milton Road Bus Lanes - Before and After Survey Study. Final report. Cambridgeshire County Council. Wu J and Hounsell NB (1998). Bus Priority Using Pre-Signals. Transportation Research (Southampton Institute), Part A. York I (1999). The Potential of Bus Priority. RR/TT/132/99. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. York I (1998). Comparison of Bus Service Improvements. PR/TT/049/98. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

Glossary
Expression ASTRID database Explanation ASTRID - Automatic SCOOT TRaffic Information Database. The ASTRID database system ‘has been developed to use information from SCOOT (see below) to provide a historical background of traffic conditions. The system continuously monitors and stores traffic conditions for later retrieval and analysis. The system can also act as a reference against which to compare current traffic conditions. Survey of attitudes, perceptions and views, in this context concerning opinions on bus priority measures. An automated counting device that counts the number of vehicles that pass through/over a sensor planted in or near a road.

Attitudinal surveys Automatic Traffic Count (ATC)

- 315 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)

Automatic Vehicle Location is the next step up from SVD (see below) and allows operators to be able to locate individual buses within the fleet. Combined with a two-way system of communication, AVL technology can relay emergency and status information to individual vehicles and/or their control centres, contributing to better management and deployment of vehicles. The area between the bus pre-signal (see below) and the main junction. Area of carriageway created by realigning the kerb. An extension of the footway into the carriageway in the vicinity of a bus stop. Enables the bus to easily access the kerb and pick up/drop off passengers at locations where there is a high demand from other vehicles for kerb side access. Bus gates are located at the point(s) of access to bus only lanes. The purpose of these is to ensure the compliance of other vehicle users. Bus gates can be traffic signals, actuated by the buses, or physical barriers surmountable only by buses, for example, rising bollards. Bus gates could also be signs such as ’No Entry Except Local Buses’. An area of carriageway reserved, using a Traffic Regulation Order (or a Traffic Management Order in London), for the use of buses and other permitted vehicles where indicated. The distance between the end of the bus lane and a downstream junction. Traffic signals at the end of a bus lane that allow buses to enter the bus advance area in front of other traffic. Bus priority measures cover a number of techniques and schemes that are concerned with improving bus operation with the aim of improving service, reliability and/or reducing bus journey times. A traffic signal aspect that specifically applies to buses which is a bus symbol. Road markings indicating the area on the carriageway used by buses to approach, stop and exit at bus stops to allow safe boarding and alighting by passengers. A regime introduced by a Traffic Regulation Order that prohibits stopping within a bus cage by all vehicles with the exemptions of buses during set times (e.g. at all times, or 07.00 to midnight Monday to Saturday). Buses in this bus lane travel in the opposite direction to traffic in adjacent lanes. Dot matrix display installed at bus stops to provide customers with real time information (see below) regarding bus arrivals. The time taken to complete a unique series of signal stages.

Bus advance area Bus bays Bus boarders

Bus gate

Bus lane

Bus lane setback Bus pre-signals Bus priority

Bus signal aspects Bus stop cage

Bus stop clearway

Contra-flow bus lane Countdown Cycle time

- 316 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Drop kerbs Dwell time Footprint

Sections of kerbline provided at the same level as the carriageway allowing mobility impaired pedestrians access between the footway and the carriageway. Time that a bus spends stationary at a stop. An intelligent vehicle detector which is laid in the road surface. This is a passive detection method since the technology doesn’t rely on vehicle based communication. PRISM can recognise different vehicle types from their signal as they pass over the inductive loop. A bus that travels on its own dedicated carriageway or track which ’guides’ the steering of the bus. The interval between consecutive buses travelling on a route. Sites where major delay is experienced on the bus network. A cable embedded in the highway used to record the presence or passage of a vehicle on or across that section of the highway. Time period between traffic signal stages in which no vehicles or pedestrians receive a green aspect. Computer programme used to design traffic signal stages and their sequence and duration at an isolated signal. Roadside infrastructure which detects the presence of buses as they pass a defined location. Used in conjunction with real time information systems.

Guided bus Headway Hot spots Inductive loops Intergreen LINSIG Location beacons

London Bus Priority The 33 local authorities in London, together with London Transport, the Network Department for Transport and the Government Office for London are developing a London wide Bus Priority Network with the aim of improving reliability, travel times and the convenience of bus services. The London Bus Priority Network consists of about 540 miles of routes and its development and implementation is being coordinated by the London Borough of Bromley. Manual classified traffic counts Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) Park and ride Manual counts are undertaken by an operative located near the road with a manual hand held counting device or video recording equipment. Allows flexible control of traffic signals at isolated junctions.

Park and ride is a system where cars are parked in a car park outside of the town centre and access is provided to the town centre by a frequent dedicated bus service operating between the park and ride facility and locations within the town. The purpose of this parking strategy is to alleviate traffic congestion on roads in and around the town centre.

- 317 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Passenger Transport Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) are the professional and executive arms Executives (PTEs) of the six metropolitan Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs). They are responsible for implementing the policies set down by their PTAs both on their own initiative (using public money raised by the PTAs from a levy on local tax payers) and in partnership with others. Person trip miles Phase Priority vehicle lane Prism Also known as passenger miles, this measure indicates distances undertaken by passengers on different modes of transport. Traffic movement(s) which is controlled by a single signal aspect. This can include pedestrians, cycles or general traffic. An area of carriageway reserved, using a Traffic Regulation Order, for the use of buses, bicycles, goods vehicles and taxis. An intelligent vehicle detector which is laid in the road surface. This is a passive detection method since the technology doesn’t rely on vehicle based communication. PRISM can recognise different vehicle types from their signal as they pass over the inductive loop. Acronym for EC Drive 2 Project ’PRiority and infOrMatics in Public Transport’ which developed the active bus priority facility now available within SCOOT (see below). The term is now used as a reference to this facility, particularly in London. A partnership between local highways authorities and bus operators designed to improve the quality and reliability of the bus services. Rat running is the term used to describe traffic that uses alternative, often residential, routes to avoid congested roads to get to their destination. This leads to a build up of often fast moving traffic on roads ill equipped to accommodate commuter traffic and can be hazardous and unpleasant for residents. A system providing information as it occurs. Increasingly used to provide up to date information at bus stops on the expected arrival time of a particular bus. Red Routes have been introduced in London (now called Transport for London Road Network or TLRN). One of the primary aims is eliminating illegal or inappropriate parking on bus routes through: the implementation of double red lines; improved signage of existing car parks; better provision for parking and for loading and unloading; in addition to better enforcement of parking restrictions. Rising bollards are a type of bus gate that prohibit access for other vehicles to bus only lanes. The maximum rate of traffic discharge from a continuous queue at a stopline.

PROMPT

Quality Bus Partnerships Rat running

Real time information Red Route

Rising bollards Saturation flow

- 318 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

SCOOT

SCOOT is a tool for managing and controlling traffic signals in urban areas. It is an adaptive system that responds automatically to fluctuations in traffic flow through the use of on-street detectors embedded in the road. Bus Scoot is a facility incorporated into SCOOT to give priority to buses. Part of the traffic signal cycle during which a particular set of phases receives green. Stakeholders can be defined as individuals or organisations that have invested resources, whether they be financial or personal inputs, i.e. time and experience, into a project. Examples of stakeholders in bus priority projects are bus operators, local highway authorities, bus passengers, local resident groups and local businesses (involvement dependent on specific measure). Public utility companies covering gas, water, electricity and telephone, etc such as Transco, British Telecom, NTL. Enables buses to be detected separately from other vehicles through the use of fitted transponders, thus allowing them priority at signal controlled junctions. Texas Instruments Registration and Identification System (TIRIS) is a radio frequency identification (RFID) system based on low frequency FM transmission techniques. The three major parts of the system are the transponder, antenna and reader. This approach has good resistance to broadband noise whilst being very cost effective to implement. The Texas Instruments Registration and Identification System (TIRIS) is a radio frequency identification system based on low frequency FM transmission techniques. The core of the system is a small transponder or tag in the buses. To interrogate the tag, a reader in the road sends out a radio signal to the transponder via an antenna. The transponder then returns a signal that carries the data that it is storing. The messages produced by this system have been integrated into the SCOOT UTC system. Measures employed to reduce excessive speeds on roads with a poor safety record.

Stage Stakeholder

Statutory undertakers Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD) TIRIS

TIRIS transponders

Traffic calming

Traffic management Traffic management is concerned with maximising the efficiency of existing transport systems. Measures utilised to fulfil this aim are varied, but generally tend to avoid reliance on new road building schemes. Measures applicable fall in to a variety of categories and these include: physical measures (e.g. traffic calming); legal or regulatory measures (e.g. bus-only lanes); technical measures (e.g. intelligent transport systems); financial measures (e.g. road- use pricing) and social measures (e.g. car sharing). Transponders Electrical devices fitted to buses to transmit vehicle specification information to local beacons.

- 319 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Transport Area/Quadrant Approach TRANSYT Variable Message Signs (VMS) Wayfarer With-flow bus lane Acronym ALG ATC ATCO ASTRID AVL CBI CCTV CO CO2 CPT DfT DPE DPTAC DVLA ETM FPN GOL GPS

In the context of this series of leaflets the Transport Area/Quadrant refers to bus corridors encompassing a wider service area and including improving aspects of the built environment that encourage and facilitate bus travel, such as improved walking routes to bus stops etc. TRAffic Network StudY Tool is a traffic signal analysis computer programme for traffic signal networks. Matrix displays providing drivers with mandatory and/or advisory information, at the roadside, relating to situations ahead or in the immediate vicinity. Electronic ticketing machines on buses providing operating data at a route level. Buses in this lane travel in the same direction as traffic in adjacent lanes.

Expression Association of London Government Automatic traffic counts Association of Transport Coordinating Officers Automatic SCOOT TRaffic Information Database Automatic Vehicle Location Confederation of British Industry Closed Circuit Television Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Confederation of Passenger Transport UK Department for Transport Decriminalised parking enforcement Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Electronic Ticket Machine Fixed Penalty Notice Government Office for London Global Positioning Systems

- 320 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

JIMs

Joint Inspection Meetings

LBI / BusPlus London Bus Initiative LBPN LTP MOVA NO2 ODPM PCN PROMPT PTA PTE QWR (+) SCOOT SPRINT SVD TfL TMO TRANSYT TRO TRL TSRGD UT(M)C VMS London Bus Priority Network Local Transport Plan Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation Nitrogen Dioxide Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Penalty Charge Notice PRiority and InfOrMatics in Public Transport Public Transport Authority Passenger Transport Executive Quality Whole Route (Plus) Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique Selective Priority Network Technique Selective Vehicle Detection Transport for London Traffic Management Order TRaffic Network StudY Tool Traffic Regulation Order Transport Research Laboratory The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Urban Traffic (Management) Control Variable Message Signs

Contacts
Arriva plc Admiral Way Doxford International Business Park Sunderland SR3 3XP

- 321 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Tel: 0191 520 4000 Fax: 0191 520 4001 http://www.arriva.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Association of London Government (ALG) 59½ Southwark Street London SE1 0AL Tel: 020 7934 9999 E-mail: info@alg.gov.uk http://www.alg.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Association of Police Authorities Local Government House Smith Square London SW1P 3HZ Tel: 020 7664 3168 Fax: 020 7664 3191 http://www.apa.police.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Association of Transport Coordinating Officers (ATCO) 3 Pine Way Gloucester GL4 4AE Tel: 01492 411491 http://www.atco.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Centro (West Midlands PTE) 16 Summer Lane Birmingham B19 3SD Tel: 0121 200 2787 http://www.centro.org.uk

- 322 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Centre Point 103 New Oxford Street London WC1A 1DU Tel: 020 7395 8125 Fax: 020 7379 0945 http://www.cbi.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) 5th Floor, Romney House Tufton Street London SW1P 3RA E-mail: cfit@dft.gsi.gov.uk http://www.cfit.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Confederation of Passenger Transport UK (CPT) Imperial House 15 - 19 Kingsway London WC2B 6UN Tel: 020 7240 3131 Fax: 020 7240 6565 E-mail: cpt@cpt-uk.org http://www.cpt-uk.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------CTC (UK national cyclist organisation) Cotterell House 69 Meadrow Godalming Surrey GU7 3HS Tel: 0870 873 0060 Fax: 0870 873 0064 E-mail: cycling@ctc.org.uk

- 323 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

http://www.ctc.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Department for Transport (DfT) Traffic Management Division 3/19 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR Tel: 020 7944 2599 Fax: 020 7944 2211 E-mail: buspriority@dft.gsi.gov.uk http://www.dft.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) Zone 1/14 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR Tel: 020 7944 8011 Fax: 020 7944 6998 E-mail: dptac@dft.gsi.gov.uk http://www.dptac.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------First Group Plc 395 King Street Aberdeen AB24 5RP Tel: 01224 650100 Fax: 01224 650140 http://www.firstgroup.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Freight Transport Association Hermes House St John’s Road Tunbridge Wells Kent

- 324 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

TN4 9UZ Tel: 01892 526171 Fax: 01892 534989 http://www.fta.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Go-Ahead Group plc 3rd Floor 41 - 51 Grey Street Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 6EE Tel: 0191 232 3123 Fax: 0191 221 0315 http://www.go-ahead.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Government Office for London (GoL) Riverwalk House 157 - 161 Millbank London SW1P 4RR Tel: 020 7217 3328 Fax: 020 7217 3450 E-mail: enquiries.gol@go-regions.gov.uk http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/?a=42496 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------GMPTE (Greater Manchester PTE) 9 Portland Street Piccadilly Gardens Manchester M60 1HX Tel: 0161 242 6000 E-mail: publicity@gmpte.gov.uk http://www.gmpte.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Highways Agency Romney House 43 Marsham Street London

- 325 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

SW1P 3HW Tel: 08459 55 65 75 E-mail: ha_info@highways.gsi.gov.uk http://www.highways.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------London Bus Initiative (LBI / BusPlus) BusPlus Programme Customer Service Centre 4th Floor 172 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9TN Tel: 020 7918 4300 E-mail: enquiries@streetmanagement.org.uk http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/bp_making_your_bus_service_better.shtml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------London Transport Users Committee (LTUC) 6 Middle Street London EC1A 7JA Tel: 020 7505 9000 Fax: 020 7505 9003 http://www.ltuc.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Merseytravel (Merseyside PTE) 24 Hatton Garden Liverpool L3 2AN Tel: 0151 227 5181 Fax: 0151 236 2457 http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Metro (West Yorkshire PTE) Wellington House 40 - 50 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2DE

- 326 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Tel: 0113 251 7272 http://www.wymetro.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Metroline Hygeia House 66 College Road Harrow Middlesex HA1 1BE Tel: 020 8218 8888 Fax: 020 8218 8899 E-mail: info@metroline.co.uk http://www.metroline.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------National Federation of Bus Users PO Box 320 Portsmouth PO5 3SD Tel: 023 9281 4493 Fax: 023 9286 3080 E-mail: enquiries@nfbu.org http://www.nfbu.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE) Nexus House St. James’ Boulevard Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4AX Tel: 0191 203 3333 Fax: 0191 203 3180 http://www.nexus.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) 26 Whitehall London SW1A 2WH

- 327 -

Department for Transport - Bus priority: The way ahead (HTML version)

Tel: 020 7944 4400 http://www.odpm.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Stagecoach Group 10 Dunkeld Road Perth PH1 5TW Tel: 01738 442111 Fax: 01738 580407 http://www.stagecoachplc.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Strathclyde Passenger Transport Consort House 12 West George Street Glasgow G2 1HN Tel: 0141 332 6811 E-mail: webfeedback@spt.co.uk http://www.strathclyde-pte.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------SYPTE (South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive) PO Box 801 Exchange Street Sheffield South Yorkshire S2 5YT Tel: 0114 221 1333 Fax: 01226 772877 E-mail: comments@sypte.co.uk http://www.sypte.co.uk

- 328 -

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful