Dear Sandy and Julie,

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. As you have made lots of points I will address them one by one.

1. You said “SPACE has taken a very hard stance against the local bus lanes, wholly blaming them for an increase in road injuries. Yet the accidents in the relevant post listed have no definite link to the bus lane.”

There has been a significant increase in the number of people injured on a very short section of Gosforth High Street. This is exactly the sort of thing you should expect SPACE, or any road safety group, to take a hard stance on. These injuries occurred immediately after the new layout was installed.

2. You said “Bus occupants might be injured for many reasons, not least sudden braking.”

What would have caused more sudden braking if not the new road layout?

3. You said “The overall increase might also be linked to just more road vehicles.”

It isn’t. We checked. In 2023, the average number of vehicles per day was 15,153. This is the second lowest since 2017 (the first year TADU shows on their dashboard).

4. You said “The number of injuries was probably well down for part of the former period because of the impact of Covid, with fewer people out and about.”

Covid was not the reason. The annual average number of injuries for 2010 to 2019 was 4.5.

5. You said “However, it is not clear how SPACE arrived at a collective position on the issue of bus lanes.”

In general we support ‘bus lanes’ but safety should always be a higher priority than vehicle speed. We have argued this consistently since SPACE was formed (at the meeting you attended!).

6. You said “Nor is it certain that the proposed consultations would actually involve many residents. Usually they only engage small minorities. There is seldom a ‘community view’ anyway and, usually, there are many viewpoints, some quite incompatible.”

We have asked the Council to make a new proposal in line with the objectives that Councillors voted for unanimously. Generally consultations are open to all to comment so we don’t understand what you mean by ‘small minorities’.

7. You said “There is plenty of hard evidence of the benefits of bus lanes”

This is not disputed.

8. You said “As members of SPACE we do not agree that bus lanes have totally failed and, as regular bus users, we think they have been a success insofar as they have made journeys more reliable and faster.“

Our assertion is that the trial has failed. Objectively it does not achieve the objectives Councillors voted for, and does not meet the Council’s adopted highway design standards.

9. You said “As pedestrians who do not cycle, we think the problem for “people walking” is not the bus lanes but the long wait and short crossing times at pedestrian crossings.”

The trial layout prioritises vehicle speeds. We hope walking will be given greater priority in a future design.

10. You said “The reasons why there are “no more buses” also has nothing to do with the bus lanes. It reflects a general crisis in bus services across the whole country.”

We don’t disagree, but one of the aims Councillors voted for was to enable low-carbon transport options. No additional options were enabled by the trial.

11. You said “You also refer to “traffic levels” and claim that bus lanes have not reduced them. The main driver here is the construction of car-dependent suburbs to the north and north-west of Gosforth, not the bus lanes themselves.”

One of the aims Councillors voted for was to ‘cut pollution and support the city’s ambition to achieve net zero by 2030’. The trial was not successful in this regard.

12. You said “You further argue that bus lanes have not led to “enhanced green infrastructure. Yet it depends on many measures, from tree planting to ‘green’ roofs and walls. Bus lanes make little difference either way.”

Yes, we agree. Again the trial was not successful in achieving the aim of enhancing ‘the green infrastructure on Gosforth High Street’

13. You said “We also think, again as pedestrians, that LTNs have been a great success and do not agree with the implication, in the open letter, that SPACE just accepts the termination of recent LTNs in Newcastle.”

The only reference to LTNs in the letter was to highlight that the Council had removed the LTNs for ‘far less serious concerns’ and to be consistent, given the large number of people injured, the Gosforth High Street should also be removed. As you know, SPACE strongly supports well-evidenced safety approaches like LTNs.

14. You said “It is certainly true, as you state, that Gosforth High Street is not a “thriving local destination”.”

This was another objective agreed by Councillors, also failed.

15. You said “This is indeed partly due to the noise, congestion and pollution caused by its current role as a major transport corridor.”

These are further reasons why the trial layout should be removed, and a new layout created that prioritises Gosforth High Street’s role as a destination rather than a transport corridor.

16. You said “But there are also several other causes as well, not least high business property rents and competition from the out-of-town retail ‘big box’ stores as well as on-line retailers.”

Agree, but the trial layout did nothing to address any of these causes.

17. You said “Perhaps the matter ought to be considered more carefully.”

Agree. This is exactly what we are asking the Council to do, and to investigate why this dangerous layout, that has not achieved any of the objectives Councillors voted for, was installed in the first place.

However, it is not clear how SPACE arrived at a collective position on the issue of bus lanes. Nor is it certain that the proposed consultations would actually involve many residents. Usually they only engage small minorities. There is seldom a ‘community view’ anyway and, usually, there are many viewpoints, some quite incompatible.

The sustainable common good is not necessarily just the sum total of individual opinions anyway. We need objective criteria for sustainable transport management. There is plenty of hard evidence of the benefits of bus lanes (eg https://www.cpt-uk.org/media/fe0ebaaj/bus-priority.pdf ; https://www.cpt-uk.org/media/rexlokpe/ttbusreport_digital-final-with-changes-1.pdf ; and https://www.urbantransportgroup.org/system/files/general-docs/pteg%20bus%20priority%20brochure%20June%202014_FINAL.pdf

As members of SPACE we do not agree that bus lanes have totally failed and, as regular bus users, we think they have been a success insofar as they have made journeys more reliable and faster. As pedestrians who do not cycle, we think the problem for “people walking” is not the bus lanes but the long wait and short crossing times at pedestrian crossings. The reasons why there are “no more buses” also has nothing to do with the bus lanes. It reflects a general crisis in bus services across the whole country.

You also refer to “traffic levels” and claim that bus lanes have not reduced them. The main driver here is the construction of car-dependent suburbs to the north and north-west of Gosforth, not the bus lanes themselves. You further argue that bus lanes have not led to “enhanced green infrastructure. Yet it depends on many measures, from tree planting to ‘green’ roofs and walls. Bus lanes make little difference either way.

We also think, again as pedestrians, that LTNs have been a great success and do not agree with the implication, in the open letter, that SPACE just accepts the termination of recent LTNs in Newcastle. In reality, across the country LTNs have been a great success and, in time, become very popular. There was an excellent seminar at the Farrell Centre recently at which plenty of evidence was provided and which should be on its website now or in the near future.

It is certainly true, as you state, that Gosforth High Street is not a “thriving local destination”. This is indeed partly due to the noise, congestion and pollution caused by its current role as a major transport corridor. But there are also several other causes as well, not least high business property rents and competition from the out-of-town retail ‘big box’ stores as well as on-line retailers.

Perhaps the matter ought to be considered more carefully.