Fears over safety of guided busway

[Metroland]

THE safety of Cambridgeshire's guided busway has been questioned after a three-bus shunt on a similar system injured six people.

The pile-up on Edinburgh's Fastlink network happened when a single-decker bus crashed into the back of a slowing-down double-decker, which was then jolted into a stationary single-decker in front. The six people suffering cuts and whiplash included the driver of the bus at the back of the smash.

Scottish police are still looking into whether human error or a fault with the busway was to blame, but opponents of the £116 million Cambridgeshire scheme have seized the opportunity to debate its safety.

Tim Phillips, chairman of campaign group Cast Iron, which wanted to see the St Ives to Cambridge train line reopened, said: "We consider the Edinburgh incident to be an indicator of the sort of collision that could not occur on a railway.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=330529

 

[4SRKT]

Rather than comparing a guided bus with a railway, wouldn't it be more sensible to compare it with a non-guided bus? This accident would most likely have happened anyway on a normal road, so the guideway is a red herring. Sounds like the pro-rail crowd in St Ives are trying to use any sort of excuse to discredit non-rail options. I'm not aware of any accidents on the guideways in Leeds or Bradford in the quite a few years they've been operating now.

 

[Metroland]

Possibly, but only in this country could they load so much safety costs onto the railways then replace it (as it gets too expensive) with something with no signals - which is going to be especially interesting in the rain at 60mph.

 

[4SRKT]

Possibly, but only in this country could they load so much safety costs onto the railways then replace it (as it gets too expensive) with something with no signals - which is going to be especially interesting in the rain at 60mph.

But what sort of headway will be operating on any section running at 60 mph, and therefore how much actual danger will there be? In the town it can't be any more dangerous than buses running in convoy on conventional roads. I agree about the double standards regarding rail versus road in this country, but this is really IMHO a debate about whether services like this should be provided by buses or trains, not about the politics of provision in each case. There is a strong cost and flexibility argument for buses, and if the bus service proposed is a high quality one then this tilts this even further. In the case of Cambridge, the railway station is inconveniently sited for the city centre, so bus penetration is immediately better than rail. Many buses to many locations can use the guideway (or parts of it) to speed up their transits into the city, whereas a railway will only benefit people living along the line. Likewise, the guideway only has to be provided, and therefore cover its costs, on the trunk sections of the routes. Beyond these, normal roads are used. A railway has the same fixed costs per mile at the Cambridge end as at the St Ives end, despite the fact that the revenue per mile on the most remote section will be lower than at the main line end. Railways win over road public transport because they have dedicated infrastructure which allows them greater speed. What the guided bus principle provides is a means of tapping into a low cost version of this benefit only at the points where it is actually needed: the buses can then maneuvre closer to both housing and destinations simply by virtue of their rubber tyres. Guided buses give all the benefits of local railways, without their inherent disbenefits of high first and operating costs, and geographic inflexibility.

I'm a lifelong railway enthusiast myself, but I'm very sceptical about most railway reopenings, especially ones that have no strategic value. The advent of the guided bus as a flexible alternative to local railways must surely mean that fewer marginal railway reopenings will occur in the future.

 

[Metroland]

Well planned headway and what they actually run at are two different things - we all know about the 3 buses turning up at once argument, and you only need one to brake suddenly to avoid an obstruction placed on the busway by the local kids, and I would suggest because there is no steering and less visual clues, this could present a hazard.

I'm deeply sceptical about guided busways, I believe you cannot get something for nothing (the figures seem to support this) and I'd be more in favour of dedicated bus lanes on standard roads that can be used off peak by cars. I'm equally sceptical about this 'maintenance' argument anyway, especially as the Edinburgh guided busway had to be shut twice because of rough riding. The maintenance cost for entire highland line network, which consists of several hundred miles of 'branches' and a main line, is £20 million a year, 1/5 the cost of that busway. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...inessPlan/RoutePlans/2007/R25 - Highlands.pdf The maintenance cost for the Chilterns is £8 million per year http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...inessPlan/RoutePlans/2007/R16 - Chilterns.pdf . If there are any savings to be made, I suspect its very marginal, outweighed by the loss of traffic caused by less attractive buses.

As everywhere knows, most costs of operating PT is staff costs. The unions don't help here either, why isn't there a lower grade for operating branches?

I'm equally frustrated by the rail industry not lowering costs though innovative track, train, signalling, electrification and infrastructure technologies. Why aren't we using new very light weight trains, with low cost in cab signalling and PACT low maintenance track for branch lines? Where is the ATOC/TOC/NR R&D on this?

While I'm certainly not a fan of some of the re-openings, some are better as preserved railways or have little value, the guided busway concept strikes me as a cul-de-sac, and it is telling other places plan to replace theirs with trams.

Anyway, we shall see.

 

[4SRKT]

I'm deeply sceptical about guided busways, I believe you cannot get something for nothing (the figures seem to support this) and I'd be more in favour of dedicated bus lanes on standard roads that can be used off peak by cars.

While I'm certainly not a fan of some of the re-openings, some are better as preserved railways or have little value, the guided busway concept strikes me as a cul-de-sac, and it is telling other places plan to replace theirs with trams.

Anyway, we shall see.

I don't think anyone thinks that guideways are something for nothing. Something for less, for sure. Also in favour of dedicated bus lanes where they can be properly policed, but in cases where a old railway alignment can be used then a guideway (or simply a buses only road) seem a sensible use compared with reopening the railway.

It may be telling that some places want trams rather than guideways, but this may be telling nothing more than the fact that trams are perceived as sexy and buses aren't. If this is a factor in attracting custom then it is of course relevant, but surely effort could be made to persuade potential passengers that a quality bus is as good as a tram. In any case, all the arguments of flexibility and of diminishing revenue/mile for undiminishing cost/mile on fixed infrastructure transport apply to trams every bit as much as railways.

Given that money may be hard to come by for a while, all this may be wishful thinking anyway.

 

[Mojo]

We've had the debate about Buses v Trams before and, like Metroland says, the sums simply don't add up in favour of buses. The operating costs are higher for buses, the regeneration and economic benefits are a figure close to nil and the sustained modal shift is almost non-existant.

It's not just the fact that trams are more attractive to motorists, which is a key point, but the whole package has to be looked at in context, trams & trains create high levels of inward investment and support regeneration schemes, whereas in my opinion there is no evidence of a successful bus network anywhere in the UK.

 

[Metroland]

I think it depends on likely volumes of traffic. I'm very sceptical St Ives - Cambridge needs 8 buses an hour. Buses makes more sense where these is generally lower volumes because the ridership is less and would never justify their own right of way. As they get a fuel rebate and call at council run bus stations/stops paid for by council tax payers, this is why they appear to be cheaper. They are in fact heavily cross subsidised by cars and council tax payers. Add a guided busway, I suspect a bus service would never pay the £116 million cost back.

Personally I believe guided busways will be used as justification to replace many branch lines in the future, and will be a complete false economy, especially compared to running buses on standard roads.

 

[4SRKT]

We've had the debate about Buses v Trams before and, like Metroland says, the sums simply don't add up in favour of buses. The operating costs are higher for buses, the regeneration and economic benefits are a figure close to nil and the sustained modal shift is almost non-existant.

It's not just the fact that trams are more attractive to motorists, which is a key point, but the whole package has to be looked at in context, trams & trains create high levels of inward investment and support regeneration schemes, whereas in my opinion there is no evidence of a successful bus network anywhere in the UK.

I would say that London's buses are pretty successful, but you're right about the rest of the country. This doesn't IMHO point to the fact that buses are inherently poor, but that the organisation of buses in this country is dire. Proper coordination and marketing are utterly missing, and until we have at least tried to do buses properly, we shouldn't be committing vast sums to inflexible fixed infrastructure systems, particularly when mixed-mode solutions such as guided buses exist. The guideway on Manchester Road in Bradford benefits all public-transport users of South Bradford (assuming that being able to get into Bradford is considered a benefit, that is!). The Metrolink to Bury (for example) doesn't benefit any areas that were not already benefitted by the actions of the L&Y.

 

[Metroland]

I see nothing wrong in integrating buses to serve rail and tram lines, then you get all the advantages. Guided busways strike me as just an excuse for construction giants to grab more money and produce something that is inherently less attractive. Busways have been about for many years all over the world, and its telling so few have been built if they are so good.

 

[4SRKT]

I think it depends on likely volumes of traffic. I'm very sceptical St Ives - Cambridge needs 8 buses an hour. Buses makes more sense where these is generally lower volumes because the ridership is less and would never justify their own right of way. As they get a fuel rebate and call at council run bus stations/stops paid for by council tax payers, this is why they appear to be cheaper. They are in fact heavily cross subsidised by cars and council tax payers. Add a guided busway, I suspect a bus service would never pay the £116 million cost back.

Personally I believe guided busways will be used as justification to replace many branch lines in the future, and will be a complete false economy, especially compared to running buses on standard roads.

I agree wholeheartedly about this particular application of guided busways, and in particular the St Ives scheme. It is totally counter intuitive to have the fixed element of the infrastructure in a rural area where it's not actually needed! Guideways are a real benefit in places like the previously mentioned Manchester Road in Bradford, or York Road in Leeds. These roads have the additional benefit of being wide enough to take them without cocking up their capacity for cars (or non-guided buses: another example of our ridiculous approach to operation of bus services being that not all operators have to use the guideway where it exists).

 

[Mojo]

I would say that London's buses are pretty successful, but you're right about the rest of the country.

I wouldn't say the London bus network is particularly successful. For a start it's a special case anyway, with London's buses backed up by the largest urban rail network in the country and the congestion charge in the central area. Added to that, TfL forecasts that the London bus network will require £1 billion of taxpayers' money for the 2008/09 financial year. The modal shift to buses in London is a mere 5% - in contrast, the average modal shift to trams in the UK is 20%, and up to 50% at weekends. To sum up, London buses require £1 billion subsidy per year and create modal shift of 5%, whereas Nottingham trams make a profit and have created modal shift in the region of 18%.

The Metrolink to Bury (for example) doesn't benefit any areas that were not already benefitted by the actions of the L&Y.

But trams in Manchester have really benefitted the local economy. The Salford Quays extension cost £140 million but creates economic benefits to Greater Manchester worth £70 million per year. The Bury line of the Metrolink has created modal shift from car of 40% at weekends, 14% on weekday peaks and 29% on weekdays off-peak. I'd call that a huge benefit. In 1991, Rail had a modal share of 17% for travelling into Central Manchester, in 1994, after the opening of parts of Metrolink, the Rail/Tram share increased to a massive 58%, reducing car journeys from 55% to 33% in 1994.

 

[4SRKT]

I see nothing wrong in integrating buses to serve rail and tram lines, then you get all the advantages. Guided busways strike me as just an excuse for construction giants to grab more money and produce something that is inherently less attractive. Busways have been about for many years all over the world, and its telling so few have been built if they are so good.

Except that in practice people living in cities but away from railway stations or tramlines don't want to dog leg their journeys via a railhead, with an attendant risk of delay. A direct bus is often more attractive than a change. Commuters may not mind so much, but in between peaks shoppers and people travelling with young children will want direct services. When the Howth-Bray service was electrified in Dublin in 1984 it was provided with a very impressive and comprehensive network of feeder buses. Where are they now?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The modal shift to buses in London is a mere 5% - in contrast, the average modal shift to trams in the UK is 20%, and up to 50% at weekends. To sum up, London buses require £1 billion subsidy per year and create modal shift of 5%, whereas Nottingham trams make a profit and have created modal shift in the region of 18%.
But trams in Manchester have really benefitted the local economy. The Salford Quays extension cost £140 million but creates economic benefits to Greater Manchester worth £70 million per year. The Bury extension of the Metrolink has created modal shift from car of 40% at weekends, 14% on weekday peaks and 29% on weekdays off-peak. I'd call that a huge benefit.

As you say (and I implied), London is a special case. Its buses were always well used and the potential for modal shift is much more limited than in other cases. A new tramline is a new mode in an area, so it's easy to measure modal shift. How do you easily measure modal shift by improvements to an already existing bus network? WRT to the Bury line, how do we know that these modal shifts are only down to the Metrolink conversion, and not simply to the existance of a railway? Congestion has become so bad sice the conversion that a lot of this shift would have happened anyway on the 504s.

How do you put two quotes in your posts BTW? And how much longer do I have to be a passenger?

 

[Mojo]

How do you easily measure modal shift by improvements to an already existing bus service? WRT to the Bury line, how do we know that these modal shifts are down to the Metrolink conversion, and not simply to the existance of a railway?

Because prior to the opening of the Metrolink the modal share of rail was 17% and three years later Metrolink/rail share was up to over 50%. You could also argue that Metrolink inserted more stops and a more frequent service (I don't know the timetable pre-Metrolink). In urban areas you've got to have frequencies of at least every 15-minutes on most routes to ensure that you get the best value for money, and many rail routes can't manage this. Obviously you've got a few successes such as the excellent Cross-City railway line in Birmingham, but unfortunately Government policy now is to create more room on the rail network for long-distance trains rather than local services.

How do you easily measure modal shift by improvements to an already existing bus network?

Lots of money is spent every year carrying out monitoring studies on public transport corridors to look at passenger numbers & modal split.

How do you put two quotes in your posts BTW? And how much longer do I have to be a passenger?

Do a quote in the normal way and just copy & paste the quote tags
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You do raise an interesting point though as to why trams appear (according to the statistics) to do better than trains and that's something I'd love to research, given that my own personal opinion I'd place them as equally appropriate for serving different purposes and cities - I think trams are better for medium & short distances and medium passenger numbers, and I'd say they would work better in Bristol due to the poor location of Temple Meads (the main city centre station) and a different type of patronage.

Steer Davies Gleave gives a few hints:

• It offers a high quality of service (attractive journey times, reliability, ambience
etc.);
• It is permanent and visible to visitors;
• It offers high passenger carrying capacity; and
• It is proven to be attractive to car users and can thus help achieve sustainable
development objectives.

Although I'd say all the same apply to trains. I think the evidence over buses for the majority of cases speaks for itself, but, like I say I'd be interested to look at it more if I'm given the chance over the next few years.

 

[Bayum]

Well, there haven't been any problems with any of the Guided Bus systems in Leeds... One thing thats happened in Edinburgh doesn't mean people should be opposed by it

 

[anthony263]

From what i have read about guided busways, i most certainly wouldnt want to drive a bus on one, and i am am very enthusiastic bus driver and transport enthusiast.

personally, i think guided busways are a complete waste of money etc.