Hooray! Just 52 days to the opening of the Cambridgeshire guided busway, the world’s longest. It’s been a bit of a trauma getting to this point, no thanks to busway’s contractor, BAM Nuttall. Indeed, it was due to open 2½ years ago. I recall no such problem with that slightly different animal, the Runcorn busway. Invariably, new ordinary road lengths & alignments open on time, though. As examples, since the 1960s, Bournemouth, Poole and south Dorset’s been full of new roads, all heavily trafficked, without problem.
But let’s not look back. Instead, we should look forward. For, although there remain detractors, especially from the informal rail community, the busway was the right decision at the right time. Yes, we could’ve potentially had a railway but that would’ve been a disaster:
- There’d be on frequent service. Buses will operate at 10-minute intervals during the day and will also operate up to midnight.
- The stopping patterns would be fixed to specific stations, with considerable gaps.
- The rail service would be inflexible, without “bending” through towns and developments, where people actually want to go.
- I’d like to see the railway deliver a project, any project really, without the built-in cost over-runs and delays we now seem not only to expect but accept.
It’s so sad that, for some, the busway has become akin to a laughing stock. It will take some time to shrug off this unfortunate start. But when residents weigh up and actually witness the real benefits, there’s no doubting that this will become a success and the laughter forgotten. It will demonstrate what the bus really can do, given the roadspace it deserves.
20 comments:
The ticketing is not flexible though, tickets are not interavailable between the two operators using the busway. So you pays your money and takes your choice. Cue mad rush for the on platform ticket machines as the bus arrives and the operator is identified! Wouldn't have had that problem if they had left it as a railway.
True anonymous @ 0703 but imagine what would happen if the TOCs had got their hands on fares. Inflation busting, incomrehensible, different fares for diffeent days and times... you name it
Imagine, this couyld have been a conventional by-pass.
Maybe the name needs changing, to get the car users to use it and not use the name 'bus'way and instead use the a brand such as 'guideway'?
I thought the seasons were interchangable?
I know you're a bus correspondent but there's really no need for the anti-train jibes. The East London Line was built on time and to budget and features a train every five minutes, which is more frequent than a lot of bus routes. A different part of the country, I know, but there are times when buses are more suitable and there are times when trains are more suitable.
As for anon @0709, most train fares are regulated- the cost of commuter season tickets certainly are. The same cannot be said for buses, where my weekly bus pass has gone up by 40% in the last five years because of "fuel costs". As for the difference between bus companies and TOCs, remind me again who owns all the TOCs? Oh yes, it'd be the big bus conglomerates.
The buses can "divert" off the busway into housing developments and the like, but that's as much a disdvantage as an advantage. As is the fact that when the bus gets to Cambridge it still has to trundle down 'normal' roads, though all the rush hour traffic.
Car users won't use the busway because the bus still sits in the same Cambridge traffic jams. And most car drivers would rather sit in their own car in a traffic jam.
A rail line with normal bus feeders was all that was needed.Out of interest, why was a tramway /light rail option not chosen?
How is the Fareham -Gosport version coming along ?
One suspects the problem was with building a concrete guided busway. Would they have had the same problems with hardcore and tarmac?
All it really needed was a dedicated cctv monitored bus lane.Having said that i wish it success.I see no reason why more operators cant participate.
"Maybe the name needs changing, to get the car users to use it and not use the name 'bus'way and instead use the a brand such as 'guideway'?"
You mean the same as Manchester Metrolink tried very hard for their vehicles not to be called "trams"?
Call a spade a spade. If you patronise the public (things like FTR spring to mind), they'll feel patronised, not fall for it.
By that I don't mean to do the Busway or FTR down - there are good reasons to improve bus services. What I mean is that whatever you call it, a big metal box with seats in and a wheel at each corner is a "bus", however nice you make it. And people just laugh at fancy names, not fall for them.
So what we should do is improve "buses", rather than saying they are something they are not.
FWIW, in this case I think a tram service would have been far better, though. This could have combined on-street running and the rail concept and provided a higher quality ride and environment, IMO. Normal heavy rail wouldn't have been a wonderful solution either.
David said: "The same cannot be said for buses, where my weekly bus pass has gone up by 40% in the last five years because of "fuel costs"."
Fuel costs *have* increased by 40% (if not more) in the last five years.
Neil @ 10.34 said : " FWIW, in this case I think a tram service would have been far better, though. This could have combined on-street running and the rail concept and provided a higher quality ride and environment, IMO."
I feel there is something in this too. But, don't forget that Cambridge is a historic town and I wonder whether local people would have been willing to accept the necessary overhead power lines in their streets.
I recall a proposal for a light rail scheme at St Albans, Hertfordshire, also a historic town. There were several reasons why the proposal was abandoned, but one was that local politicians of all hues were unwilling to see overhead line equipment in the streets of their town.
But we have what we have at Cambridge now, and I'm pleased to see that at last it is going to open, and look forward to giving it a try.
Conventional wisdom says that the investment in infrastructure for routes of this nature is justified when the maximum passenger flow per hour reaches a certain level. That level varies according to the type of system - light rail can be justified for lower volumes than heavy rail. Part of the payoff is the higher capacity that the vehicles using the infrastructure have, compared to conventional buses, that don't generally require very much additional infrastructure (if any). Thus, for example, some of the trams used in the city near to my home can carry 320 passengers (with one crew member). Even two Citaro artics wouldn't achieve that capacity.
I don't know what the relevant passenger flow figures are predicted to be for the route of the Cambridgeshire Busway, but I am inclined to agree with those who suggest that a light rail scheme would have been more suitable, and the flexibility mentioned by other commentators would also have been useful.
The guided busway concept has the disadvantages of the high additional infrastructure costs, without the increased capacity, and therefore, operational efficiency, of the rail-based modes. While the faster running times will enable some operational cost savings, I suspect these are so small that it would take decades for them to repay the cost of the investment in the infrastructure.
The Runcorn Busway is slightly different in a couple of respects - it is not 'guided' (well, just by the drivers!), and therefore is a conventional road surface (as far as I am aware). Secondly, it was built and planned as a segregated route at the same time as the rest of those parts of the town, and the additional infrastructure costs were no doubt relatively lower.
I agree that it is good that the Cambridgeshire Busway will open, and it will be interesting to see the results, but I have very serious doubts that it will generate sufficient 'benefits' to justify the costs. It will no doubt stand as an object lesson that 'this is not the way to do it'. If the planners of future projects can learn from that, then it will not have been completely in vain.
@ Anon 1054:
Fuel costs *have* increased by 40% (if not more) in the last five years.
Fuel prices, until the last couple of months of Arab political unrest, had only gone up by about 15p/litre (at the pump), less when you consider the hedging of prices that the big transport conglomerates employ.
The point is, though, is that train fares haven't risen by the same amount because commuter rail fares are pegged by RPI.
As for the wider issues about busways, there's nothing wrong with dedicated roads but guided lanes are a waste of time and money. In Leeds not all operators have buses that can use the guided lane so several buses on York Road have to use the normal road. In Bradford there's a mixture of express and stopping buses using the route, which means the expresses get stuck behind the stopping buses (or, indeed, broken down buses). In both cases the guided lane goes down the middle of a dual carriageway meaning passengers have to cross three lanes of traffic to catch their bus.
The Quaylink busway in Gateshead is a normal road protected by rising bollards, meaning only local buses can use it. No getting stuck behind stopping or broken down buses and no excessive costs.
I can't wait for the first bus to conk out and cause carnage.
Rail,light rail or tram tend to appeal to all social classes. A bus to many people is a thing full of old folk and odd-balls.
Perhaps some of those redundant London bendies would have been a cheap and handy option on this busway ?
Serious question...are there passing loops or escape options if a jam /accident does occur ?
Quote"David said: "The same cannot be said for buses, where my weekly bus pass has gone up by 40% in the last five years because of "fuel costs"."
Fuel costs *have* increased by 40% (if not more) in the last five years."
Fuel costs form a very small part of an operators costs and a 40% increase in fuel does not justify anything anywhere near a 40% increase in fares it would in fact acount worse cvase for 7%.
I though as well all the bus companies were claiming how wonderfully fuel efficent there new buses where?
I hope the busway is a resounding success. This is a chance for the bus industry to showcase how buses can provide rapid transit service. The busway should offer similar quality to light rail service.
Neil @ 10.34 said : " FWIW, in this case I think a tram service would have been far better, though. This could have combined on-street running and the rail concept and provided a higher quality ride and environment, IMO."
The busway also combines on-street running as David @8.39 says "...when the bus gets to Cambridge it still has to trundle down 'normal' roads, though all the rush hour traffic". The council website states "Where guided buses travel on normal roads they will use bus priority measures, including new bus lanes and bus priority traffic signals".
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/around/thebusway/howitworks/
Not knowing the area I wonder what is the extent of these bus priority measures, and would trams have been given more priority?
Trams have been mooted before, but the biggest problem is that there is nowhere to lay the track on just about any street in Cambridge! Bus priority measures for the guideway consist of two pre-existing bus lanes, unless the Council are talking about the new bus gate which the guideway doesn't use. Trains would not have been a option just due to how far our railway station is from the city centre- it's a good mile or so.
Today's Metro (July 29 2011, P6) mentions the Cambridge Busway is having tests carried out for it's impending opening. Strangely though despite calling it a busway it doesn't refer to buses using the track. Instead the article refers to "ecofriendly carriages" which will run up to 60mph, are airconditioned and have wi-fi. Is this spin to fool car users or political correctness gone insane?
Post a Comment