Cabinet Member Report
3rd April 2009
Date:
Subject:
Petition - Westbourne Neighbourhood Association –
Noise from buses using Chepstow Road
Summary of this Report
1.
The report provides an update on what has been achieved since noise
from these buses was the subject of a petition which was presented to
the Council by Councillor Michael Brahams in July 2006. The petition
was part of the justification for the complete resurfacing of this
particular road and has supported requests made to Transport for
London (TfL) over the last three years by the Director of
Transportation for quieter buses.
2.
While the Council has no direct power to stop noisy buses, it can make
requests to TfL for improvement. The City Council has been
successful in encouraging TfL to make improvements.
Recommendations
1.
That the Cabinet Member notes the actions taken to date and the fact
that the Council continues to press TfL to take the following actions:

Require bus operators to fully meet the new higher TfL standards for
acceptable levels of bus noise (measured in both a constant speed
test and in a full acceleration test, together with similar tests with all
auxiliary equipment operating) into all future bus contracts and
ensure full compliance with this standard on every bus;

Give preference to any bus operator able to supply and run buses
that are significantly quieter than the new standard:

Establish beyond doubt the various contributions from different bus
types to the significant new component of ultra-low frequency noise
mentioned in this petition with a view to eliminating this noise
pollution;

Establish acceptable limits to ultra-low frequency noise from buses
and incorporate them into an additional standard for future contracts;
and

Introduce a new generation of buses with a hybrid drive system and
much quieter engine as a priority on roads, such as Chepstow Road,
where older residential homes are most vulnerable to bus traffic
noise.
2. That the petitioners be told of the above requests to TfL and informed
that:

The City Council has no direct legal power to stop noisy buses from
operating on local roads, even though it has been actively making
representations through its officers for noise reductions from the
newer buses;

The City Council’s power to prohibit any class of traffic or weight of
vehicle is limited by TfL’s power to either block such a measure or to
object and call for an inquiry where the positive role of buses is likely
to be considered dominant ; and

The City Council resurfaced Chepstow Road in summer 2006 with
financial assistance from TfL in response to residents’ complaints,
and will seek to maintain the surface quality in the future.
Cabinet Member Report
City of Westminster
Cabinet Member:
Date:
Classification:
Title of Report:
Report of:
Wards involved:
Policy context:
Financial summary:
Report Author:
Contact Details:
Page 1 of 12
Environment and Transport
3rd April 2009
For general release
Petition – Westbourne Neighbourhood Association –
Noise from buses using Chepstow Road
Director of Transportation
Bayswater
Local Implementation Plan
There are no direct financial implications arising
from this report
Graham Attwell, Transport Strategy and
Programmes
Telephone 020-7641-1919
Email gattwell@westminster.gov.uk
1.
Petition
1.1
A petition from the Westbourne Neighbourhood Association was presented
to the meeting of the full Council on 19 July 2006 by Councillor Michael
Brahams. Over 310 signatures were received. The petition statement
reads:
‘To:
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London
Peter Hendy, Commissioner, Transport for London
Peter Brown, Chief Operating Officer and Acting Head of
Surface Transport
Sir Simon Milton, Leader of Westminster City Council
Roger Evans, Chairman of Transport Committee, GLA
We, the undersigned, all residents of Chepstow Road and its
neighbouring streets, DEMAND, urgent action to resolve the
intolerable vibration and noise caused by First’s Volvo doubledecker buses. These vibrations are shaking our houses on
Chepstow Road and the streets behind. Many of us, including
elderly people and young children, cannot sleep properly and suffer
stress as a result. We believe that it is also a potential health
hazard. We want you to put pressure on First to ensure the repairs
to these buses in weeks rather than months. We would expect
Westminster City Council to support us in seeking the resolution to
these problems.
These are the facts:
1) Noise monitoring proves that the buses produce extremely high
levels (90 decibels) of low-frequency noise when idling. We
believe that this is a serious threat to health.
2) TfL has never tested the effect of these buses on buildings along
the route, nor picked up the engine defects admitted by First and
Volvo.
3) The heavy buses cause strong shockwaves when they hit
potholes, which make our houses shake violently.
4) The bus drivers often accelerate and brake very sharply at bus
stops and traffic lights and drive much faster at night, which
makes the problem even worse.’
1.2
This report provides an update on the actions that the City Council has taken
following the receipt of the petition and details the current position.
2.
Background
2.1
The petitioners raise a number of issues that are primarily the responsibility of
TfL in approving particular types of bus and accepting certain bus driving
standards on the five current bus routes along Chepstow Road. However, the
Council does have responsibility for the road surface in Chepstow Road and
resurfaced the carriageway two years ago, prior to excavations for work on the
Page 2 of 12
water main, to eliminate the prospect of further deterioration in its quality. This
work was funded by TfL.
2.2
The Council received similar complaints from residents in Chepstow Road and
many other roads where the newer buses started to replace older designs
about four years ago. These complaints were first forwarded to TfL in
December 2004, but were thought by it to be minor mechanical problems
associated with the exhaust system or alternator mountings of the buses in
question. The various remedial works undertaken by TfL at that time did
reduce some of the most conspicuous noise within the buses for the benefit of
passengers. However, they did not reduce either the low frequency noise that
many residents and employees within frontage buildings have found
disturbing, or the generally high levels of engine noise on some buses when
under power.
2.3
The persistent complaints of residents from Chepstow Road led to Council
officers undertaking a transport noise measurement study in Chepstow Road
during February 2006. This took noise measurements in the street and in a
ground floor bedroom in close proximity to the footway of Chepstow Road.
The study showed that stationary buses at the bus stops with their engines
running generated a high volume of low frequency tonal energy that could
account for part of the complaints from residents. The noise measurements
were taken by automatic equipment over many hours, and the output could
not be correlated with specific makes of bus. Thus it was not known for certain
whether this low frequency problem is confined to the particular buses used on
two of the bus routes in the road, or is present on all four of the routes using
double deck buses there.
2.4
In addition the mid-winter date of these measurements may not have found
the worst situation. This was because it had become clear that the cooling
fans for the Volvo buses used on two of the routes were a significant source of
noise and that the fans may not have been running continuously, or at full
speed, under winter conditions in comparison to the warmer days of summer.
However, the study together with the recognition by TfL and Volvo that there
was a continuing noise problem led to modifications of the cooling fans by
Volvo. It also led to the adoption by TfL of improved noise standards for all
new bus contracts.
2.5
The modifications made to the Volvo buses could be expected to lower the
unwanted noise, but there was some doubt as to whether every bus had
benefited from the claimed improvement and whether the low frequency
nuisance had been adequately or even marginally suppressed. Thus Council
officers with agreed financial support from TfL carried out a further study of
noise from specific Volvo buses in Chepstow Road. The report of this second
study in April 2008 showed that there had been some reduction in engine
noise but that the gain might still be less or more variable than expected, and
with the low frequency component still present.
2.6
Some residents have sought to reduce the noise problem by requesting TfL to
divert some of the five routes, or all the routes in one direction, to an
Page 3 of 12
alternative street running north-south, such as Ledbury Road. In isolation this
type of reduction would still leave an unacceptable noise profile in Chepstow
Road, as well as introducing it to an additional road. Provided the noise
problem can be cured at source on the buses, this re-routing proposal would
command much less support. It is generally preferable for bus passengers to
have several routes on one street so that the combined frequency reduces the
waiting time to many local destinations.
3.
Transport for London’s position
3.1
It was only in 2006 that TfL London Buses appears to have acted on the noise
complaints from residents with frontages on bus routes. It has since remeasured the “drive by” noise while the engine cooling fans are running and
compared the results for the two different makes of double deck buses used in
Chepstow Road. The standard test procedure is a nationally accepted one but
is not apparently carried out with a fully warmed engine and any
thermostatically controlled cooling fans operating at full speed. While these
fans may be expected to only operate for short periods within the normal
operating cycle of a bus engine, this is not necessarily true of a London bus in
high summer. The national method of measurement is done under carefully
controlled conditions at a special test site that can be replicated, but will not
exactly represent the very variable conditions in an urban street.
3.2
These measurements for TfL highlighted the additional noise on the Volvo
buses when the engine cooling fans were running to be up to 14 decibels.
This level of additional noise was a major problem and demanded to be dealt
with urgently. It would be clearly heard whenever a bus with a fully warm
engine was driven under power. It may be that this relates to the part of the
complaint about how the buses are driven, a point made in the residents’
petition as fact 4, in paragraph 1.1 above. What might be considered as
normal acceleration and reasonable momentum for a modern bus is heard by
residents as extremely fast driving. TfL did on two occasions meet a group of
residents from the Chepstow Road area to explain the nature of the problem
and the solutions being pursued. It has also provided information for residents
at the Bayswater Area Forum.
3.3
TfL acted on the issue of the noisy Volvo buses by insisting on the
manufacturer correcting the existing problem of the noisy engine fans, as set
out in TfL’s letter of 6th October 2006 to the Managing Director of Volvo Bus
Ltd in Warwick (Appendix 1). TfL was also unwilling to accept bus operators’
contracts using any more of these buses until the problem was resolved. This
action put enormous commercial pressure on Volvo to find a solution, and it
promptly devised modifications to the cooling fans of the engines. The
published test results for these early modifications were encouraging, but the
conversion programme was substantial as there were understood to be over
2000 of these buses in service throughout Greater London. All Volvo buses
were reported to have been modified and put back into service on the affected
routes although residents still insist that there is much variability between
individual buses.
Page 4 of 12
3.4
In addition TfL, as set out in its letter of 6 October 2006 to Volvo Bus Ltd, is
now starting to set much stricter standards for all new buses on future
contracts. These incorporate new higher standards for acceptable bus noise in
both a constant speed test and a full acceleration one, together with similar
tests with all auxiliary equipment operating. In this TfL is going well beyond the
normal national standard and will ensure that all future diesel bus fleets are
not significantly noisy in any of their operating modes. However, this approach
is not welcome to all residents as they consider that the standard National test
with its low limit should be carried out with the buses operating with all the
nosiest ancillary equipment at the worst level. Officers fear that insistence on
such a higher standard might well be legally challenged by bus manufacturers
at some stage.
3.5
TfL has explained to residents from the Chepstow Road area that the source
of the high levels of noise is from the cooling fans and that a solution has been
found. However, for the ultra low frequency noise problem TfL is only
requesting that Volvo reduces the effects from low frequency noise, but as yet
is unable to quantify the requirement. The recent study by Council officers and
part funded by TfL has shown that this low frequency noise nuisance is still
present in Chepstow Rd and that the Volvo buses are a significant contributor
to the problem.
3.6
The various alternative suppliers of conventional bus chassis will have to meet
TfL's emerging requirement for quieter new buses. There is also the prospect
of new hybrid diesel/electric battery buses, as currently seen experimentally
on route 360 with single deck buses, becoming a much better option. These
buses use a small diesel engine of under 2 litres (similar to that in a small car)
to continuously charge a battery, which provides the necessary electric
traction. A prototype double deck bus with this hybrid drive has also been
recently demonstrated by a manufacturer, partly in response to a request from
the former Mayor of London.
3.7
The noise generated by these hybrid buses is reported to be significantly lower
than that from the best conventional buses. Thus these buses would be a
more satisfactory bus for roads like Chepstow Road. TfL has indicated a
willingness to consider trying them out on one or more routes through
Chepstow Road, as soon as they are ready for wider deployment. TfL would
be most likely to consider such an option when the contracts for the existing
services come up for renewal, which means that they may be some years
away. However, TfL might be given an option by a bus manufacturer to run
some of theses buses rather sooner on one or more of the Chepstow Road
routes as an experiment. There could be a large market for such buses and
leading manufacturers might welcome an opportunity to try them out in real
service conditions.
3.8
Officers met representatives of TfL on 5 September 2008 to discuss the latest
position. The position statement that was discussed at the meeting is attached
as Appendix 2.
Page 5 of 12
4.
The City Council’s position
4.1
The City Council has made representations to TfL based on these various
measurements of noisy buses. It will continue to press for further action to
reduce noise and vibration from buses overall, and the Volvo buses in
particular. The standards now set out by TfL for all new bus contracts are a
significant improvement, without being impossible for manufacturers to
achieve. They represent levels that are currently attained by the quieter diesel
buses from some of the existing suppliers.
4.2
Information on the steps being taken by TfL was also disseminated at the
Bayswater Area Forum on 14 November 2006. TfL’s Head of Surface
Transport Communications attended this Forum, together with Council officers
and Members, and answered questions from concerned residents.
4.3
It is considered that recent concerns over bus speeds in Chepstow Road may
not be well founded as opportunities for speeding there are very limited
because of the combination of parking and traffic signals. Any move to limit the
speed of buses well below 30 mph may only result in the bus using a lower
gear with a possibility of a higher engine speed and more noise. If a general
speed limit lower than 30mph were to be contemplated in Chepstow Road and
along other parts of the five bus routes involved with similar residential
frontage, the bus services for passengers would be much slower and much
more costly to operate. Neither outcome is considered desirable.
4.4
If acceleration is regarded as the indicator of speed, then it is correct that the
acceleration of all modern diesel buses under power has been steadily
increasing over recent years. It is now close to that only previously achieved
by trolley buses, and can surprise other road users and pedestrians, as well as
being disturbing for passengers on board. However, it does benefit
passengers, operators and TfL with reduced delays after every stop and again
with quicker journeys and reduced operating costs.
4.5
The limited powers available to the Council over bus engine noise constrain it
to making representations by TfL, who is the service provider. For the
carriageway a high quality surface can reduce additional noise and vibration
emanating from vehicle tyres and suspension. Such noise is heard and felt by
frontagers, and it is within the Council’s power to provide the necessary quality
of surfacing.
5.
Legal Implications
5.1
There are no direct legal implications. Local highway authorities are not liable
for noise and vibration caused by traffic on their roads.
5.2
In accordance with Standing Order 8, and the relevant provisions relating to
executive decision-making under the Local Government Act 2000, petitions
are to be referred to the appropriate Chief Officer who shall, at the first
convenient opportunity, submit to the relevant Cabinet Member, in this case
Page 6 of 12
Councillor Danny Chalkley as Cabinet Member for Environment and
Transport, a report on the receipt of the petition detailing either the action
taken or seeking instruction as to the action to be taken.
6.
Consultation
6.1
While there has been no formal consultation with all residents of the area on
the issues around noisy buses, there have been numerous meetings and
opportunities for residents and their associations to express their views. These
meetings have involved discussions with Ward Councillors and dialogue with
TfL officers. There has also been extensive correspondence with concerned
residents to ensure they were fully informed over the noise issues. All told the
informal consultation has included a discussion at two meetings arranged by
the Westbourne Park Neighbourhood Association, two meetings with residents
at TfL premises, and information exchanged at the Bayswater Area Forum
with TfL representatives and other interested parties, when two Bayswater
Ward Councillors were present. The consensus view of residents on each
occasion has been that the noise issue was a serious problem.
7.
Financial Implications
7.1
This report has no financial implications.
8.
Impact on Health and Well-being
8.1
The various actions on engine noise introduced so far by TfL for the buses will
improve local environmental conditions.
9.
Staffing Implications
9.1
There are no direct staffing implications as a result of this report.
10.
Outstanding Issues
10.1
Officers will continue to work with TfL in order to seek a resolution of the
issue of excess noise from buses.
11.
Performance Plan Implications
11.1
There are no direct implications.
12.
Crime and Disorder Act
12.1
There are no implications under this Act.
13.
Health and Safety Issues
13.1
There are no health and safety issues arising from this report.
Page 7 of 12
14.
Co-operation with Health Authorities
14.1
There are no issues relating to co-operation with health authorities arising
from this report.
15.
Human Rights Act 1998
15.1
There are no issues relating to responsibilities under the Human Rights Act
1998 arising from this report.
16.
Traffic Management Act 2004
16.1
There are no known impacts on the Traffic Management Act 2004 except
that there would be significant inconvenience for bus passengers if the bus
services were withdrawn.
17.
Conclusions and Reasons for the Proposed
Decisions
17.1 This report considers a petition by the Westbourne Neighbourhood
Association presented to the Council on 19 July 2006 concerning noisy buses
in the Chepstow Road area, and details the actions subsequently taken in
response to the petition. TfL has fully modified its existing fleet of buses. It is
recommended that the Council should continue to press TfL to only accept
new buses into service, which meet its new standard with lower noise levels.
In addition the Council should press TfL to research the generation of low
frequency noise from its existing buses, seek modifications to reduce it on
these buses, and establish acceptable limits for this noise on new buses for
incorporation into future bus operating contracts.
17.2 It is recommended that the Council should also continue to press TfL to
introduce a new generation of buses with a hybrid drive system, or with an
equivalent step change reduction in noise, as quickly as possible on the routes
through Chepstow Road. In particular the Council would welcome their
introduction there on an experimental basis. This would be in recognition of
the exceptional number of routes that use this street with predominately
residential frontages, and a reflection of its intention to introduce such buses
as soon as possible on all these routes.
17.3 It is recommended that the Council should inform the petitioners of the limited
powers available to the Council over noisy buses, even though it has been
actively making representations about the noise problems. The Council has
carried out resurfacing of the carriageway of Chepstow Road to reduce
surface noise.
Page 8 of 12
If you have any queries about this report or wish to inspect any of the background
papers please contact:
Graham Attwell
Strategy and Programmes, Transportation Department
Telephone 020 7641 1919
E-mail gattwell@westminster.gov.uk
List of Appendices
1.
TfL’s letter to Volvo dated 6th October 2006 setting out new noise standards.
2.
TfL’s update on Central London Bus Noise Issues – position statement
presented to meeting on 5th September 2008
Background Papers
1.
Petition issued to Council on 19 July 2006.
2.
Results of transport noise measurement study carried out along Chepstow
Road by the Council in February 2006.
3.
Results of second noise study of Volvo buses in Chepstow Road – April 2008.
Page 9 of 12
For completion by Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport
Declaration of Interest

I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Environment and
Transport

I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Environment and
Transport
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate
to make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled
Petition – Westbourne Neighbourhood Association – Noise from buses using
Chepstow Road.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection
with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out
your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the
Secretariat for processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Page 10 of 12
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Head of
Legal Services, the Director of Finance and, if there are staffing implications, the
Director of Human Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you can be made
aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into account before
making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be properly identified
and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to
the Members of the relevant Policy & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision falls
within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working days
have elapsed for any call-in request to be received.
Page 11 of 12