Agenda item

(i)         Joint Report of the Assistant Chief Executive and Corporate Director Regeneration and Economic Development.

(ii)        Presentation by Andrew Leadbeater, Section Manager – Infrastructure.

The Chair asked the Section Manager – Infrastructure to give an update presentation in relation TRANSIT 15 (for copy, see file of minutes).

Members that TRANSIT 15 was a major project that began within the Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2 and continued now in the first year of LTP3.  Councillors were reminded that the completion time for TRANSIT 15 was March 2014 and that its main aims were to improve journey experience, increase sustainability and to increase bus patronage as an alternative to private cars.

The Committee noted the LTP3 objectives that were helped by TRANSIT 15 and that data had suggested a “corridor approach” leading into Durham City and analysis had highlighted several congestion/delay points and those that were feasible and offered value for money were then selected as schemes to be taken forward.  Members noted schemes completed or underway included:

·        A693 Stanley Roundabout

·        C57 Lanchester Junction

·        A691/C62 Kaysburn Roundabout

·        New Inn Traffic Signals

·        Unc. North Road / B6532 Durham (Bus Stop outside of County Hall)

·        A177 Durham High School

·        A167 Barley Mow Roundabout

The Section Manager – Infrastructure explained there were several planned schemes:

·        C100 Dryburn Park Bus Lane

·        Framwellgate Moor Bus Lane

·        Croxdale Bus Lane

·        Sacriston Turning Circle

·        A181 Gilesgate Bank/Sherburn Road Bus Lane Extension

·        A177 South Road Bus Lane

Members noted that there were also several other schemes including:

·        B6532 Aykley Heads Roundabout Approach

·        A690 High Street South Langley Moor Bus Lane

·        Lobley Hill Road, Meadowfield Bus Lane

·        Nevilles Cross Traffic Signals

·        A690 Leazes Bowl

·        A167 Northlands Roundabout

It was explained that major issues faced were public consultation, especially on the proposed bus lanes, and objections to schemes an example given being the loss of a lane at Low Shincliffe.

Councillors learned that outcomes thus far were evaluated using real time information that showed that travel times were improving, an example being the journey past Durham High School into Durham of 4m23s before works was now only 2m13s after completion.  Members noted that Bus Operators were on board with the work being carried out and planned by Durham County Council (DCC), quoting GO North East in their support.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure added that the capital spend thus far, by the end of the 2011/12 would be around £2 Million of a total budget for TRANSIT 15 of £5 Million through to March 2014, this representing a slight underspend.

The Chair thanked the Section Manager – Infrastructure and asked Members for their questions. 

Mrs O Brown noted the achievements of the scheme, however, noted a lack of schemes in what was the former “Wear Valley” area.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure explained that this was because that area demonstrated relatively few delays, and those were usually attributed to delays on the approach in Durham radiating out along the previously mentioned “corridor approaches”.

Councillor C Carr noted the excellent success of TRANSIT 15 so far, noting that some delays were outside of DCC control such as the 82 from Kimblesworth that was affected by traffic at the Newcastle part of the journey, which GO North East have sated was a result of Eldon Square being the contributing factor.  Councillor C Carr also noted that the bus stop on the C5 near the roundabout was dangerous and added that some other Local Authorities allowed the use of bus lanes by Taxis, though DCC did not and this could cause confusion as deregulation meant that Taxis from “other” areas were now operating within County Durham.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure noted the issue of delay on services from Newcastle and added that indeed there was work between Local Authorities in order to mitigate delays.  Members were informed that the issue of the bus stop on the C5 mentioned by Councillor C Carr would be looked at and that the issue of Taxis using bus lanes was not primarily a congestion debate, rather an issue of identification and of safety, with DCC not being able to enforce it being under the remit of the Police.

Councillor M Williams noted that he objected to the A690 taxi/bus lanes on the basis that it was felt it may increase congestion and this appears to be the case.  Councillor M Williams added that he felt that the new traffic lights at the New Inn had made the situation worse, with the lights remaining on red for two long at the pedestrian crossing and added that the bus lane should be looked at as there was a bus stop pole on a bend that “will be hit” and proved to be an obstacle for buses to avoid.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure explained that the issues of congestion had been looked at in terms of getting “into” Durham as the priority, not necessarily the routes leading out and the phasing of traffic lights and the bus stop pole position had been determined on that basis.  Mr D Lavin added the area Councillor M Williams referred to was also a corner that coaches needed to negotiate and this could affect tour buses and school buses alike.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure noted this issue would be looked at.

Councillor B Graham noted that the condition of some of the buses on the network in County Durham were quite old and not fit for use.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure explained that Arriva had recently received 13 new vehicles that were coming into service so improvements should be seen soon not only to quality, in terms of reliability and punctuality.

Mr D Lavin understood the corridor approach, however, he asked whether there would be any developments to help “cross-links” from one side of the County to the other to help improve transport links to boost access to employment opportunities.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure noted that there were not many routes across the County other than through Durham, however, at the next stage, beyond TRANSIT 15, Consent, Stanley and Chester-le-Street would be looked at together with other “corridors”.  Mr D Lavin added that a sign at Stanley Bus Station was obscured by a fascia, the Section Manager – Infrastructure noted the issue.

Mr T Batson referred back to his earlier point from Agenda Item 5, with reference to improving transport connectivity between towns, as Mr D Lavin had also noted vital to help make employment opportunities accessible and added that some towns and villages, for example Tow Law were without services after 8.00pm, thus limiting the possibilities of some employment, i.e. shift working and also having an impact upon the opportunities for people to access a vibrant social life.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure noted the comments and conceded this was a problem, however, in the light of reductions to subsidised services and after consultation it was agreed to focus on saving day time services and to therefore cuts services on evenings or at weekends.  Councillor C Carr noted that the policy as regards bus services had been agreed by Members at Full Council.  Mr T Batson wondered whether the policy should be re-examined and noted that perhaps a change of bus lanes to “no car lanes” could be a boon to business vehicles in utilising them as well as helping to ease congestion by removing them from the “public” traffic.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure explained that the prime concern for bus lanes was for the effective public transport network and any alteration that could negatively affect services would not be in keeping with policy.

Councillor P Stradling noted that paragraph 6 of the covering report had set out that the scheme had identified site that offered best value and asked what amount of the funding received from Government remained.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure reiterated that to date £2 Million had been spent, and that the remainder of the schemes as outlined up to 2014 would utilise the remainder of the £5 Million allocated to TRANSIT 15.  Councillor P Stradling noted earlier comments as regards neighbouring Local Authority areas that may contribute to congestion and wondered if Sunderland and Hartlepool contributed more heavily to any delays in East Durham and asked how such delays were assessed, was it through consultations with the public via mechanisms such as the Area Action Partnerships.  The Section Manager – Infrastructure explained that the delay points were identified via Bus Operators and Traffic Data and those discussions with neighbouring Local Authorities were on the agenda for post-TRANSIT 15.

Councillor C Carr asked what the Staffing Implication referred to within Appendix 1 to the Covering Report.  Members were informed that this represented issues that involved taking on work via the Strategic Highways Section.    

Resolved:    

(i)         That the report and presentation be noted.

(ii)        That a further update is provided to the Committee at its July meeting.