letters
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
We welcome letters for publication on transport topics. Address them to Commercial Motor, Dorset House, Stamford Street, London SE1.
Bus priority measures —an answer
I read with interest Mr Clarke's article, "Bus lanes—a threat to traffic flow?" in Commercial Motor, June 18. Whilst some of what he says is quite correct, other points are positively misleading. This reply is intended to ensure that a discussion on the allocation of road space between competing modes is not biased towards one view only.
Mr Clarke says that "bus operators today form one of the most vocal groups in the field of traffic management". The evidence seems to be quite to the contrary. The "roads lobby" is backed by many interested parties, whereas public transport action groups rely on funds from individuals, and are often less well organized. The British Road Federation staged a formidable and costly "objection" at the Inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan, and included evidence by leading academics and others. The only case I know of at the Inquiry which was committed to bus priority measures was presented, by contrast, by a journalist.
Mr Clarke also says the bus operators' call is for "ever increasing special facilities for public service vehicles". I cannot see much evidence of ever-increasing facilities when in the LT area there are over 1700 miles of main roads, over which buses pass, and the GLC is studying the possibility of providing bus lanes on about 20 miles of this network. Hardly a great advance for the bus.
Of course, the main enemy of the bus is the private car, simply because they are not only in competition for road space, but also for a share of the travellers, In the Central Area of London about 73 per cent of travellers on the roads in the evening peak period are in buses. Surely it should follow that buses are entitled to a reasonable amount of road space. That is not to say that there is no economic case for commercial vehicle use of these roads, but, of course, it should be compared to bus use on an equal footing. This would involve valuing "value of goods (E)—hours", in the same way that "person-hours" of travel are presently assessed. Can this be done with reasonable precision?
Mr Clarke also says that "there is apparently little accurate data on the results of most schemes now in operation". Since very few schemes have been implemented and, so far, for short periods of time, we should not expect precise results of bus priority measures just yet. However, the results to date are so encouraging that it is unlikely that ignoring any disbenefits to the commercial vehicle operator does substantially affect the case for giving priority to buses. We must, of course, measure these disbenefits, and I have already said that at the present it is doubtful if these disbenefits can be quantified. No doubt the freight industry can helplocal authorities in this respect.
I find it surprising that Mr Clarke should expect the police and local authorities to be enthusiastic about such measures. The. police are saddled with yet more restrictions to enforce, with obvious difficulties, and local authorities are invariably highway authorities not transport authorities.
Mr Clarke makes the classical error made by many working in this field by referring to the "traffic capacity of the road", and in addition stating that it may be inadequate if bus lanes are introduced. The word "traffic" implies vehicles. Surely the capacity should be measured in terms of persons and volume or value of goods rather than vehicles. The second error is in relation to the word "inadequate". What he means is that the present level of non-bus vehicles would be reduced if bus lanes are provided. But why shouldn't this level be reduced if it can be shown to be in the community's interest to do so? One of his statements is particularly alarming: "Even where there is any saving in bus journey time, it tends to be normal and quite out of proportion to the overall loss to other forms of traffic." Benefits to bus users arise in many ways, and can be very large. For example, "free-flow" conditions not only reduce bus travel times, but also the regularity of the services, and therefore waiting times. Waiting time is valued highly by bus travellers, arid priority schemes can in some circumstances halve these, producing very large benefits.
Several examples of bus priority schemes are quoted by Mr Clarke, which do cause problems. This confirms the need, already recognized by some, that it is necessary to study measures for giving priority to buses on a network basis rather than on an individual scheme-by-scheme ad hoc basis as at present. Only when a network of roads is considered can the overall economic effect be carculated. It is, indeed, the economic result that matters, but this will be difficult to assess when benefits to persons and to goods need to be combined.
I accept entirely that bus priority schemes should not be judged solely on their effect on bus users, but need to be assessed on the net benefit to the community at large. In doing this, I believe it is unlikely that we would come to Mr Clarke's conclusion that "what appears to be a localized gain could turn out to be a loss to the community at large". Only further research can, of course, decide .who is right.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Camden.
R. LANE, Chief traffic and communications engineer, London Borough of Camden.