APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by Loughborough Town
Centre Transport Scheme
SUMMARY
Leicestershire County Council propose to build
an Inner Relief Road past Loughborough town centre, increase the
pedestrianised area, and restrict bus access to the town centre.
DETAILS
To quote from the Leicestershire Local Transport
Plan 2006-11, Chapter 11, page 312.
Scope of proposals
11.115 The town centre transport proposals
consist of:
— The completion of Loughborough inner
relief road, with associated junction improvements on existing
and proposed sections of the road to manage new traffic patterns
resulting from A6 traffic diverting away from the town centre.
— Creation of an improved pedestrian
environment along A6 Swan Street/Market Place/High Street and
Baxter Gate.
— Provision of new high quality bus
interchange facilities both in the High Street/Baxter Gate area
and in The Rushes/Derby Square area.
Contribution to LTP2 objectives
11.117 The scheme will contribute strongly
to the following LTP2 objectives:
— The A6 through the town centre suffers
considerable congestion at present, and this contributes to congestion
north and south of the centre. The inner relief road, and associated
improvements, will help to tackle congestion by allowing traffic
to flow more freely.
— The A6 through the town centre is
an Air Quality Management Area. Construction of the inner relief
road, with the smoother traffic flows and other improvements from
improved vehicle technology, will resolve the problem of air pollution
at this location.
— Pedestrianising the A6 Market Place
will allow significant improvements in pedestrian and cycle access
to facilities, and improved bus facilities will help make access
by bus more attractive.
— Pedestrianisation will bring an end
to road accident casualties on the A6 through the central area.
The relief road, built to modern design standards and with very
little pedestrian/vehicle conflict, is expected to produce an
excellent safety record.
— Pedestrianisation, and removal of
traffic to a more suitable alternative route, will greatly reduce
the impact of traffic on people shopping, working and living in
the central area.
Which seems very good. Unfortunately many of
the County Councillors want the scheme implemented with a total
ban on cycling in the pedestrianised area. Perhaps more important
is the approach to public transport.
The proposals will result in buses having to
take a convoluted route through the town centre because of the
closure of the existing route through the town centre, initially
just in the northbound direction, but potentially in both directions.
This will make interchange between buses difficult because the
stops may be at opposite ends of the town centre, rather than
being concentrated close together at the moment. The new positions
of some of the bus stops will be much further away from the town
centre, and so people will have to walk much further to catch
a bus.
Leicestershire County Council and Charnwood
Borough Council commissioned a report on four options for bus
provision in the town centre from WS Atkins (the "Atkins
report") (Loughborough Town Centre Bus Facilities Study,
Final Report, September 2005, and now available on Leicestershire
County Council's website: (http://www.leics.gov.uk/atkins_loughboro_bus_study_final_report-2.pdf)).
Four options were considered, of which option 1 (On-street bus
stops and stands on High Street and Baxter Gate) is close to the
current proposals. Their study showed that the distances people
would be required to walk would change dramatically:
| Bus Route | Walking distance (metres)
from bus stop to
| Town Hall | Sainsburys
| The Rushes |
| existing | 200
| 140 | 20 |
| 99 to Nottingham | proposed
| 340 | 190 | 200
|
| extra | 540
| 50 | 180 |
| existing | 250
| 140 | 220 |
| 127 to Shepshed | proposed |
250 | 520 | 410
|
| extra | —
| 380 | 190 |
| existing | 200
| 270 | 20 |
| 127 to Leicester | proposed
| 250 | 520 | 410
|
| extra | 50
| 250 | 390 |
| existing | 250
| 270 | 20 |
| Air Line Shuttle to Derby | proposed
| 500 | 390 | 110
|
| extra | 250
| 120 | 90 |
| existing | 130
| 270 | 20 |
| 5, 11, 12 northbound | proposed
| 250 | 520 | 410
|
| extra | 120
| 250 | 390 |
| Existing | 200
| 270 | 20 |
| 5, 11, 12 southbound | proposed
| 500 | 390 | 110
|
| extra | 300
| 120 | 90 |
The town centre car parks will now be closer than some of
the main bus stops!
Bus passengers with disabilities, shopping, etc will be particularly
disadvantaged by the increase in walking distance.
The Figure (labelled Appendix B, and from the minutes of
the Leicestershire County Council Cabinet Meeting of 23 November
2006) shows the layout of the town centre, and arrows indicate
the convoluted route buses will have to take to serve the town
centre. Because of the convoluted route which buses will be forced
to take, the time and distance to pass through the town centre
will increase. This will increase operating costs. To quote from
the Atkins report:
5.4.21 The impact on vehicle requirement is likely to
much more significant. The vehicle requirement to operate a given
frequency can change as a result of only a few minutes increase
in bus journey time, particularly where layovers are already tight.
The industry rule of thumb operating cost per bus is at least
£100,000 per annum.
5.4.22 Bus operators may react to a change in the increase
in vehicle requirement in the following ways:
— they may maintain the existing routeings and frequencies,
and increase the number of vehicles in operation; or
— they may reduce journey time elsewhere by taking
a service out of a housing estate or a village; or
— they may reduce service frequencies.
5.4.23 Based on the information contained in tables 3.1
and 3.2, the following services have low layover times, and hence
may require more vehicles if journey times increase:
— 3, 13, 27 (interworked), 5, 99, 127.
5.4.24 It is considered that the following routes may
require additional resource as a result of increased journey times:
— 3, 13, 27 (one vehicle), 5 (one vehicle), 127
(one vehicle).
5.4.25 Broadly, this is the case for all options. So
this very tentative assessment suggests that each scheme could
cost around three peak buses, at an annual operating cost of at
least £300,000 per annum.
The Atkins report was quoted as a reason for a decision in
the Leicestershire County Council cabinet meeting on 31 October
2006, but was not made publicly available until nearly two months
later.
The public consultation in December 2005/January 2006 did
not mention the extra walking distances. The Atkins report was
not available at the public exhibition on the proposals, and the
council officers appeared to have little knowledge of and no interest
in potential bus routes around the town centre. Subsequently the
a reply from Bernard Evans, Team Leader Major Transport Projects,
who was responsible for the consultation stated that "All
bus services in Loughborough are commercial, and apart from closing
roads, the highway authority can not influence where operators
choose to run their services. Bus routes themselves as you correctly
highlight (apart from the section through central Loughborough)
were therefore not subject to public consultation, though bus
routing through this area was a key issue of the public consultation."
I can only assume that he was only concerned with bus passage
through the pedestrianised area, not how the bus services would
operate around the restrictions.
The "improved" bus facilities we are being offered
will cost about £300,000, (Leicestershire County Council
Cabinet minutes, 31 October 2006), and will consist of new bus
shelters and real time displays (and will mostly replace existing
facilities). The cost of the whole proposal is estimated at about
£13 million.
CONCLUSION
The proposals offer the motorist a relief road free, with
removal of congestion. The bus passenger will get new bus shelters,
have to walk much further, and pay an extra £300,000 each
year because extra buses will be required to maintain services.
Some councillors are proposing that cyclists will be banned from
the town centre.
The scheme will benefit the motorist, and shoppers arriving
by car. Users of public transport will be disadvantaged. Cyclists
may be disadvantaged. The proposals, written by the County Council,
in their LPT2 submission, do not mention that the proposals will
disadvantage public transport users but improve access for the
motorist.
25 April 2006
|
