Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM)

Tobbes · 21 Feb 2020

I've been gently following the proposals for a metro service in and around Cambridge, and the consultation has now opened - the response form is here.

I am delighted to invite you to our public consultation for the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro - a new high-quality ‘metro-style’ transport network for the region...

Feedback from the consultation will help to influence the evolution of the proposals.

However, it seems that the Mayor has decided on an electric bus rather than conventional light rail, and I wondered if anyone knew why?

Rubber tyres are themselves a source of pollution (in particular, particulates) and more guided busways also removes the possibility of building a tram network in the centre of Cambridge that could be tram-trains to connect with, e.g., Haverhill.

Grateful for thoughts!

RailUK Forums

Mathew S · 21 Feb 2020

Tobbes said:
I've been gently following the proposals for a metro service in and around Cambridge, and the consultation has now opened - the response form is here.

However, it seems that the Mayor has decided on an electric bus rather than conventional light rail, and I wondered if anyone knew why? Rubber tyres are themselves a source of pollution (in particular, particulates) and more guided busways also removes the possibility of building a tram network in the centre of Cambridge that could be tram-trains to connect with, e.g., Haverhill.

Grateful for thoughts!

Doesn't Cambridge already have a guided busway? Maybe the decision to go with more buses rather than introducing another transport mode makes sense, in this case.

Ianno87 · 21 Feb 2020

Mathew S said:
Doesn't Cambridge already have a guided busway? Maybe the decision to go with more buses rather than introducing another transport mode makes sense, in this case.

Cambridge's congestion problem is both chronic and acute. Doing more of the same ain't going to solve it. I'm of the view that trams are increasingly essential to actually get people out of their cars.

Alfie1014 · 21 Feb 2020

Shades of Colchester where the much vaunted Rapid Transit System has morphed from a tram (like) system to a series of part guided bus routes that may or may not be powered by innovative means, but not apparently well connected to the existing bus network. Though that hasn’t stopped the Government already part funding the first phase to the tune of £33M (plus £60M for a new dual carriageway road into a a new garden city development that hasn’t yet been approved by the planning inspector)!

Bletchleyite · 21 Feb 2020

Ianno87 said:
Cambridge's congestion problem is both chronic and acute. Doing more of the same ain't going to solve it. I'm of the view that trams are increasingly essential to actually get people out of their cars.

I think actual trams would be a better choice (or conventional trolleybuses). These (no doubt patented so tied into one supplier) hybrid schemes are rarely better and often end up converted in the fullness of time.

Midnight Sun · 21 Feb 2020

Otherwise known as 'Palmer's Folly', As rather than use tried and tested technologies like trams. This plans to use fully autonomous self-driving buses which instead of using guide rails and guide wheels. Will use cameras, gps, radar and Lidar, the control systems would need to be capable of analyzing sensory data in order to provide accurate detection of other vehicles and the route ahead. The the effect of the bugs and flaws that inevitably occur in complex interdependent software systems; sensor or data shortcomings; and successful compromise by hackers. Should the computer fail this autonomous self-driving bus will just go out of control (No driver to take over) and at 55mph (Was to be 120mph) in the tunnel section.

The CAM scheme proposes 36 services per hour through the ‘core’ city centre section. That defines how resilient the system needs to be, and that infrastructure has got to be really good.Where high-intensity bus services run the roads start crumbling up. The city of Caen in France abandoned it's rubber-tyred tramway and rebuilt it as a conventional tramway. One of the main reasons being due to the tyres running over the same spot in the road, there was significant rutting of the roadway, resulting in extensive repairs at significant cost to the operator. Unlike a conventional tramway, The CAM will be proprietary system, meaning that once having installed it, there would be difficulties in purchasing vehicles from any manufacturer. All vehicles will have to be able to talk to each other as part of the guideness system. A standard tramway, by contrast, can easily accommodate vehicles from multiple suppliers.

eastdyke · 21 Feb 2020

So Mayor P continues to kick the can down the 'bus' lane?
For the tunnelled sections I have no idea how passengers would be evacuated in the event of a break down, or heaven forbid a fire, affecting any 'unit', especially with others stacked up in front and in behind.
Cambridge traffic can only be solved by removing cars from all of the central area and that includes those of the people who live there as well as those of all visitors.
Look forward to many more years of traffic hell in Cambridge :'(

trebor79 · 21 Feb 2020

Tunnels? Under Cambridge? o_O

NotATrainspott · 21 Feb 2020

It's a common problem that rapid transit schemes die a death by a thousand cuts as soon as the idea of using rubber tyred vehicles, no matter how fancy, crops up. Once that happens the bean-counter floodgates are opened until all you're left with is a few segregated bus lanes in areas which were easy, and no meaningful/hard changes in the sections which need new capacity the most.

Once you're proposing a tunnel, the cost of tracks really isn't your main constraint any more. I fear the tunnel will end up being value-engineered out once they realise that rubber-tyred vehicles are capable of running on normal streets. When they're proposing such small vehicles, it won't be as difficult for them to wind through the streets in the traditional core of the city. An underground tunnel may cost far more but it means you can have big, long vehicles with a lot of capacity and no need to worry about the street pattern above.

Tobbes · 22 Feb 2020

Thanks to all- what a shambles

HSTEd · 22 Feb 2020

Well rubber tyred metros are succesful in several places in the world, but they don't try to run on open streets.....

Bletchleyite · 22 Feb 2020

HSTEd said:
Well rubber tyred metros are succesful in several places in the world, but they don't try to run on open streets.....

There are some niche places where they make sense, for instance the extremely steep gradients of the Lausanne Metro (it'd probably need to be a funicular otherwise, and that would limit capacity, and a rack system would be slower) - but not more widely, and in Paris it's just a sop to M. Michelin.

Elsewhere, two bits of steel two horses' backsides apart preside, and for very good reason.

Midnight Sun · 22 Feb 2020

HSTEd said:
Well rubber tyred metros are succesful in several places in the world, but they don't try to run on open streets.....

Except that this is not a rubber tyred metro that uses guide rails and guide wheels. It is more a case of a speeded up, inlarged version of the Heathrow Pod System at Terminal 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTra_(rapid_transit)
https://londonist.com/2014/09/a-ride-on-heathrows-self-driving-pods

HSTEd · 22 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
There are some niche places where they make sense, for instance the extremely steep gradients of the Lausanne Metro (it'd probably need to be a funicular otherwise, and that would limit capacity, and a rack system would be slower) - but not more widely, and in Paris it's just a sop to M. Michelin.

Rubber Tyre metros were adopted for good reason in Paris.

Have to remember just how short the stop spacings on the Paris Metro are, and thus how important acceleration becomes.
More modern power electronics have reduced their advantage, but it is still extant.

Also being able to climb gradients like they can is probably quite useful in stringing a useful alignment together through a city.

MarkyT · 22 Feb 2020

Siemens Cityval is an automated rubber-tyred small metro/APM solution evolved from earlier VAL systems used in France, in Lille for example. The city of Rennes, France, also has an earlier VAL on line A but has opted for the Cityval system for its new line B, due to debut in 2020. The original VAL used side rails for guidance and power collection on plain track with a central rail only provided at junctions for switching. Guidance for Cityval by contrast uses the Translohr central rail system throughout. Might be suitable for Cambridge, but any surface running would still have the rail grooves of tramways which could be a particular issue in that city of bikes!

Bletchleyite · 22 Feb 2020

I'm not sure climbing gradients is really relevant to the fenland!

MarkyT · 22 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I'm not sure climbing gradients is really relevant to the fenland!

It could allow ramps accessing subsurface tunnels to be shorter though.

Ianno87 · 22 Feb 2020

eastdyke said:
So Mayor P continues to kick the can down the 'bus' lane?
For the tunnelled sections I have no idea how passengers would be evacuated in the event of a break down, or heaven forbid a fire, affecting any 'unit', especially with others stacked up in front and in behind.
Cambridge traffic can only be solved by removing cars from all of the central area and that includes those of the people who live there as well as those of all visitors.
Look forward to many more years of traffic hell in Cambridge

Agree re:city residents. Unless you have specific special circumstances (e.g. disability), I see no reason to continue to expect the right to continue to park outside your own house. My idea is Zipcars placed locally, and dedicated residents parking at the Park & Ride sites as a sort of 'reverse' Park & Ride.

A city renowned for its intellectual prowess now needs to lead in thinking differently, not keeping its thinking stuck in the 1970s.

HSTEd · 22 Feb 2020

Ianno87 said:
I see no reason to continue to expect the right to continue to park outside your own house. My idea is Zipcars placed locally, and dedicated residents parking at the Park & Ride sites as a sort of 'reverse' Park & Ride.

You could probably put automated parking garages pretty close to the centre.

You still have to permit vehicles to get close to houses for deliveries etc etc.

johnnychips · 22 Feb 2020

A genuine question: why is residents parking outside their houses a problem? Surely traffic can still get up and down the road.

What is a ‘Zipcar’? I glanced at the rest of the thread, but perhaps I missed a reference to it.

Megafuss · 23 Feb 2020

johnnychips said:
A genuine question: why is residents parking outside their houses a problem? Surely traffic can still get up and down the road.

What is a ‘Zipcar’? I glanced at the rest of the thread, but perhaps I missed a reference to it.

If you look at a network map of the Stagecoach services within the city, you will see vast swathes of areas such as around Romsey and Newnham that don't have a bus service and that's simply down to the fact the roads are too narrow to run anything down them. Some of the roads are truly awful for anything wider than a car.

edwin_m · 23 Feb 2020

johnnychips said:
What is a ‘Zipcar’? I glanced at the rest of the thread, but perhaps I missed a reference to it.

One of several "car club" providers, who locate cars at strategic points for their members to hire, generally for short periods, via some form of online system. One option so people who only need a car occasionally don't need to own one, although it only really works in urban areas as the car has to be within walking distance of enough people.

PG · 25 Feb 2020

Given that the various colleges own vast tracts of land in and around the city I wonder if any of them have expressed an opinion?
Especially as I'd guess that they'd be able to object to tunnels which ran underneath their land?

camflyer · 25 Feb 2020

PG said:
Given that the various colleges own vast tracts of land in and around the city I wonder if any of them have expressed an opinion?
Especially as I'd guess that they'd be able to object to tunnels which ran underneath their land?

if the University is given the choice of a tunnel under their buildings or knocking several down to make space for a surface metro then they may suddenly see the advantages of going underground

Anyway, just think of the archeological possibilities. It could keep some students busy for years.

PG · 25 Feb 2020

camflyer said:
if the University is given the choice of a tunnel under their buildings or knocking several down to make space for a surface metro then they may suddenly see the advantages of going underground

Anyway, just think of the archeological possibilities. It could keep some students busy for years.

True. I suppose if they went for tunnels the colleges would be swayed if they were recompensed for allowing them under their land.

HSTEd · 25 Feb 2020

I am skeptical how much the resistance the Colleges could realistically offer to compulsory purchase of subsurface rights.
They are hardly likely to get much support from the local public given the perennial traffic problems.

edwin_m · 25 Feb 2020

PG said:
True. I suppose if they went for tunnels the colleges would be swayed if they were recompensed for allowing them under their land.

Is that a comment on possible subsidence

?

Ianno87 · 25 Feb 2020

johnnychips said:
A genuine question: why is residents parking outside their houses a problem? Surely traffic can still get up and down the road.

What is a ‘Zipcar’? I glanced at the rest of the thread, but perhaps I missed a reference to it.

Megafuss said:
If you look at a network map of the Stagecoach services within the city, you will see vast swathes of areas such as around Romsey and Newnham that don't have a bus service and that's simply down to the fact the roads are too narrow to run anything down them. Some of the roads are truly awful for anything wider than a car.

Plus residential streets with cars parked on both sides (and only one car width between) are generally unfriendly to cyclists and pedestrians. And extremely inefficient with use of road space.

Bletchleyite · 25 Feb 2020

Ianno87 said:
Plus residential streets with cars parked on both sides (and only one car width between) are generally unfriendly to cyclists and pedestrians. And extremely inefficient with use of road space.

These would be better converted to herringbone parking on one side (the angle can be adjusted to get the width right) and double yellows with "no loading" kerb markings on the other, with traffic one way in the direction of the herringbone. I've seen this already done somewhere though I can't think where.

MarkyT · 26 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
These would be better converted to herringbone parking on one side (the angle can be adjusted to get the width right) and double yellows with "no loading" kerb markings on the other, with traffic one way in the direction of the herringbone. I've seen this already done somewhere though I can't think where.

Perhaps with a narrow opposing direction cycle lane as well if it can be fitted, and at least passive provision for battery charging infrastructure alongside the new parking spaces.

Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM)

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member