Time to stop arguing about bus priority measures
In the last few months the issue of bus priority measures has attracted a surprisingly high level of attention from some politicians, with new policy proposals seeming to contradict the same government’s own advice from three years ago. So why the sudden change of approach?
Last autumn, at the height of party conference season, the Government announced a series of proposals to tackle the fabled “war on motorists” in a 30-point programme of policies called the Plan for Drivers. At the very top of the list was a proposal “to make sure bus lanes help rather than hinder traffic by operating only when buses are running, or when traffic is heavy enough to cause delay to buses”.
The claim that bus lanes were being introduced where they were not needed, or that the hours that they operated were often excessive, came as a surprise to many who understand and appreciate the benefits they provide. Bus priority measures help buses to thrive. By preventing buses from being snarled up in traffic, dedicated bus lanes shorten journey times, make timetables more reliable and bus travel more attractive to passengers.
The language and messaging suddenly being adopted by the Government in its Plan for Drivers was also very different from the messages provided by the very same Government just three years ago.
Back in March 2021 the Government published its proposals to improve bus service in its National Bus Strategy for England. It declared: “The Government expects plans for bus lanes on any roads where there is a frequent bus service, congestion, and physical space to install them. Bus lanes should be full-time and as continuous as possible”. So three years ago the Government was stressing that there needed to be more bus lanes and that where possible they should operate for 24 hours. But in less than 1000 days, their messaging on bus lanes was transformed.
The obvious question is why the change of approach?
The new guidance promised in October has now been published. Reading the 108-page document, it is thankfully clear that the new advice is not as drastic as the original plan suggested. However, it still panders to some inaccurate claims. For example, it provides no serious evidence for the claims that bus lanes have been introduced unnecessarily or that they operate for too many hours and can ‘hinder traffic’.
In reality, it is difficult to see how disabling a bus lane at times when there is no congestion, like at night or in the early hours of the morning, would provide any real benefits to drivers. In fact, implementing stop/start timings for bus lane restrictions and differences on roads within a city would confuse most motorists, and many would welcome simplicity to avoid having to check the specific hours of a bus lane.
Ultimately, the guidance rightly leaves the final decision on whether a bus lane should operate for 12 hours, 14 hours or 24 hours a day to the local authority, as has long been the case.
There is no serious evidence for the claims that bus lanes have been introduced unnecessarily. There is also no serious evidence that the limited number of bus lanes operating for 24 hours create traffic problems. Policymakers need to stop creating exaggerated claims and, in some cases, fabricated myths about the problems created by lanes and start returning to some real facts.
Far from creating congestion, bus lanes and bus priority at traffic lights actually ensure traffic flows more smoothly. They are a tried and tested way to boost bus passenger numbers and reduce the number of cars on the road. They are not bad news for motorists – they actually help ensure traffic moves smoothly, benefiting all road users.
The straw man arguments against bus lanes and bus priority measures need to be blown away.
