Discussion of pros and cons of guided busways as Sadiq Kahn suggests London could get one.

[mr_jrt]

Sadiq Kahn has put the kibosh on the Metrolink Extension project and suggested a guided bus instead.

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/ne...n-says-tfl-will-not-pay-for-met-line/?ref=rss

But, the Mayor ... suggested a guided bus route.

He added the bus route was something that had been considered but was not a definite alternative ...

Very disappointing, to say the least.

Moderators note: for discussion on the Metropolitan Link Extension project please use the relevant thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/metropolitan-line-extension-mlx-croxley-rail-link.104312

 

[mrcheek]

anyone suggesting a guided bus system for anything should automatically be voted out of office

 

[tbtc]

anyone suggesting a guided bus system for anything should automatically be voted out of office

You mean like the Cambridgeshire one, which has been a huge success, seen significantly more passengers than expected?

Or the Leigh one, which has been a huge success, seen significantly more passengers than expected?

Rail isn't the answer to everything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

anyone suggesting a guided bus system for anything should automatically be voted out of office

I don't know - but I don't see a justification for one here. A regular bus with well-designed bus lanes and traffic signal priority would be quite adequate. I'm sure there's an existing route that just stands a small upgrade to the benefit of far, far more people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Underground extension feels a bit "Crayonista" (i.e. how can we link up these loose ends on the map?)

Yes, that's my impression as well. And given that none of Watford's stations are smack bang in the middle...

 

[AE]

You mean like the Cambridgeshire one, which has been a huge success, seen significantly more passengers than expected?

I think that claiming that the Cambridgeshire Guided Bus is a huge success is overstating it somewhat. It is better than before, if you happen to be heading in that direction from Cambridge, but I'm not sure it's £180 million better. I'd be surprised if £180 million was spent to improve buses and there wasn't some improvement. I'm glad they built it though because if they hadn't we wouldn't have the parallel cycleway which is superb.

 

[Steve Harris]

You mean like the Cambridgeshire one, which has been a huge success, seen significantly more passengers than expected?

I certainly wouldn't call it a success. I lost count of how much money it cost to take the company who built it to court to get them to rectify faults and repairs because it wasnt built to the agreed specification.

That, and its already had a fair few accidents on it. So, not as safe as a train??

 

[tbtc]

I certainly wouldn't call it a success. I lost count of how much money it cost to take the company who built it to court to get them to rectify faults and repairs because it wasnt built to the agreed specification

I think that claiming that the Cambridgeshire Guided Bus is a huge success is overstating it somewhat. It is better than before, if you happen to be heading in that direction from Cambridge, but I'm not sure it's £180 million better. I'd be surprised if £180 million was spent to improve buses and there wasn't some improvement. I'm glad they built it though because if they hadn't we wouldn't have the parallel cycleway which is superb.

In terms of it carrying more buses and more passengers than expectations - it's been an operational success. We are quick on this Forum to highlight the railway stations that get better-than-expected passenger numbers but seem to only focus on the cost over-runs of projects that aren't Heavy Rail.

I like railways but they aren't the answer to everything - Cambridgeshire got it's busy busway built much quicker and much cheaper than the proposed Hertfordshire proposal.

 

[mr_jrt]

Without a time machine it's rather hard to tell if a rail solution in Cambridge would have been just as, if not more successful. I have a feeling it probably would have been. A bus scheme in Watford would not work though due to the massive peak time road congestion in west Watford which the extension was designed to mitigate; the Rickmansworth Road in particular is an absolute nightmare.

 

[AE]

Cambridgeshire got it's busy busway built much quicker and much cheaper

It wasn't that quick and it certainly wasn't cheap. The busway already needs repairing despite being only a few years old. Motorists regularly try to drive down it for some reason and at least one bus driver drove badly enough that the bus bounced off the busway. It does get busy especially in the mornings but it's only a segregated bus route at the end of the day and the middle section of the route is on the ordinary clogged roads anyway. IMHO the most successful aspect of the busway is the adjacent cycle path which gives residents in the north of Cambridge a safe (as long as the bus drivers don't drive off the guideway) and simple route to get to Cambridge North station.

 

[Steve Harris]

In terms of it carrying more buses and more passengers than expectations - it's been an operational success. We are quick on this Forum to highlight the railway stations that get better-than-expected passenger numbers but seem to only focus on the cost over-runs of projects that aren't Heavy Rail.

Putting things right is not a "cost over-run".

Im a Cambridgeshire tax payer. So, why should i pay for the incompatence of a company or someone in that company who cant get the mix of concrete/re-bar correct?


For a company not to deliver what was agreed and then claim more cash to put it right ???

I don't think so !!

 

[edwin_m]

I don't know - but I don't see a justification for one here. A regular bus with well-designed bus lanes and traffic signal priority would be quite adequate. I'm sure there's an existing route that just stands a small upgrade to the benefit of far, far more people.

Also, unlike the other busway projects, most of the route is still required for either the Watford Met service or the Overground so a bus service between Watford and a logical destination such as Rickmansworth could only use a fairly short section of busway.

I certainly wouldn't call it a success. I lost count of how much money it cost to take the company who built it to court to get them to rectify faults and repairs because it wasnt built to the agreed specification.

The fact that the construction was a mess doesn't necessarily mean that all busways are a bad idea. By that logic we should never build another tramway after Edinburgh, and we should never electrify another railway after Great Western (err, no, never mind).

 

[Steve Harris]

Also, unlike the other busway projects, most of the route is still required for either the Watford Met service or the Overground so a bus service between Watford and a logical destination such as Rickmansworth could only use a fairly short section of busway.

The fact that the construction was a mess doesn't necessarily mean that all busways are a bad idea. By that logic we should never build another tramway after Edinburgh, and we should never electrify another railway after Great Western (err, no, never mind).

I never said it wasn't a bad idea. I was more pointing to the fact of posters saying it has been a success when in my eyes it hasn't (and I'm not the only one on here thinking that!)

I agree the Cambridge busway has surpassed its projected passenger numbers. However for something to be a success, it has to tick more than one box. To ignore that, well, i shouldn't need to say more.

 

[gingerheid]

It wasn't that quick and it certainly wasn't cheap. The busway already needs repairing despite being only a few years old. Motorists regularly try to drive down it for some reason and at least one bus driver drove badly enough that the bus bounced off the busway. It does get busy especially in the mornings but it's only a segregated bus route at the end of the day and the middle section of the route is on the ordinary clogged roads anyway. IMHO the most successful aspect of the busway is the adjacent cycle path which gives residents in the north of Cambridge a safe (as long as the bus drivers don't drive off the guideway) and simple route to get to Cambridge North station.

As we are on a rail forum we obviously all like trains, but we should be honest about the successes and failures of the busway while bearing in mind that it isn't the busway's fault that it was built on something we would rather have seen as a railway. It cost more and took longer than it should have, yes. But this has also happened in places like Edinburgh Trams and Sheffield Tram Trains. Perhaps most pertinently, it also also happened in the construction of the Cambridge North station that would have been part of the railway line that we would all rather have seen.

But that is it. No bus has bounced off it, but four buses have crashed into to the junctions on entry. In the same period a bus also ended up on Jesus Green and various other non-guided bus accidents have happened, because sometimes that happens with busses; it's not a guideway problem. Motorists do regularly drive on it, but motorists also regularly bash level crossing barriers and railway bridges.

The cycle path is amazing, but it not the main success at all. The main success can't be overstated; the main success is that (as much as it may annoy us all and is illogical), passengers demonstrate absolute love for it in the key way that matters. The passenger growth could never have been believed; it has been absolutely spectacular. We now have well over 30 busses arrive in Cambridge from the north before 9am (is it 34 at the moment?), many of them rammed. This is startling enough on its own, but is all the more remarkable when you consider that every other bus route around or out Cambridge except one (the X5) has seen terrible decline. Bus services in Cambridge that have not been halved as a result of declining passenger numbers brought about by unreliability caused by congestion are the exceptions to the rule.

The next thing sad thing we have to accept is that if the guided busway had been opened as a railway we would have bungled it. Awfully. There'd be something like an hourly two carriage service from St Ives to Cambridge, and capacity and frequency wouldn't have been quickly expended when the need became clear. If it was a railway it would have needed to have been a metro style service with a 6/7 min frequency, and never in a million years is that what it would have been.

 

[Busaholic]

As we are on a rail forum we obviously all like trains, but we should be honest about the successes and failures of the busway while bearing in mind that it isn't the busway's fault that it was built on something we would rather have seen as a railway. It cost more and took longer than it should have, yes. But this has also happened in places like Edinburgh Trams and Sheffield Tram Trains. Perhaps most pertinently, it also also happened in the construction of the Cambridge North station that would have been part of the railway line that we would all rather have seen.

But that is it. No bus has bounced off it, but four buses have crashed into to the junctions on entry. In the same period a bus also ended up on Jesus Green and various other non-guided bus accidents have happened, because sometimes that happens with busses; it's not a guideway problem. Motorists do regularly drive on it, but motorists also regularly bash level crossing barriers and railway bridges.

The cycle path is amazing, but it not the main success at all. The main success can't be overstated; the main success is that (as much as it may annoy us all and is illogical), passengers demonstrate absolute love for it in the key way that matters. The passenger growth could never have been believed; it has been absolutely spectacular. We now have well over 30 busses arrive in Cambridge from the north before 9am (is it 34 at the moment?), many of them rammed. This is startling enough on its own, but is all the more remarkable when you consider that every other bus route around or out Cambridge except one (the X5) has seen terrible decline. Bus services in Cambridge that have not been halved as a result of declining passenger numbers brought about by unreliability caused by congestion are the exceptions to the rule.

The next thing sad thing we have to accept is that if the guided busway had been opened as a railway we would have bungled it. Awfully. There'd be something like an hourly two carriage service from St Ives to Cambridge, and capacity and frequency wouldn't have been quickly expended when the need became clear. If it was a railway it would have needed to have been a metro style service with a 6/7 min frequency, and never in a million years is that what it would have been.

That was a very constructive and interesting post, which counters quite a lot of what I've read about the Busway over the years, never having personally experienced it. It's always a problem when a project, transport or otherwise, goes way over budget during construction, often due to unrealistic expectations as well as incompetence of planners and/or the firms doing the construction. They can still turn out to be successes, sometimes runaway. I'd cite the Edinburgh tram in this, Croydon Tramlink as well (almost a victim of its success, I'd say) and the London Olympics site if we're going into non-transport matters.

 

[mr_jrt]

The next thing sad thing we have to accept is that if the guided busway had been opened as a railway we would have bungled it. Awfully. There'd be something like an hourly two carriage service from St Ives to Cambridge, and capacity and frequency wouldn't have been quickly expended when the need became clear. If it was a railway it would have needed to have been a metro style service with a 6/7 min frequency, and never in a million years is that what it would have been.

Conjecture.

 

[Bald Rick]

Conjecture.

Maybe.

But it is certain that anything above a half hourly service could not have been supported with the existing track / platform layout at Cambridge. It is also certain that a railway could not have directly served the wide range of locations in Huntingdon, St Ives and places in between that the bus service does, nor could it have achieved the city centre penetration of Cambridge.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

here we go again... another thread opened on guided busways... and all the usual busway bashers crawl out from the woodwork with the same tired arguments...

cost over-runs? they never happen on heavy rail projects [or hospital/school builds] do they?
poor construction leading to expensive repairs? they never happen on other projects do they?
successful operation and better growth than forecast? we better ignore that cos the facts don't fit with our own dogma.

as with all things the success/ failure of a busway is directly linked to whether it is the right solution to the problem... and also to who operates it.

IF guided busways can NEVER be the right solution can anyone explain why after 30 years of operation the Adelaide o-Bahn hasn't been judged a disaster and converted to light or heavy rail?

perhaps it would be better to compare 2 systems and ask what lessons can be learned for future projects?

I suggest comparing Cambridge and Luton.

On the face of it the Luton busway should be, by a far margin, the better performing of the 2 systems... so why isn't it?

could it be that the Cambridge busway is a franchise operation? only certain operators are allowed to use it, and at least one of those operators have a proven track record of innovation and improvement of bus services. and also have a commitment to a quality operation [whatever you think of stagecoach they can never be accused of being a slouch]

compare this to Luton where any operator with a couple of buses fitted with guidewheels can register a service along the busway. coupled to that the major operator in Luton is arriva... not exactly known for it's quality, innovation or anything else of value. In fact arriva have a proven track record of decimating their own operations in areas where they are the dominant operator [look at what happened in Milton Keynes after they took over MK Metro]... furthermore the only use they have really found for the luton busway is to further cut their pvr... where are the 30 bph laid on top of the normal stopping services that were promised...

for those that say "but you can put bus lanes on normal roads for a fraction of the cost and get the same results" have a look at Swansea..

when First introduced the streetcar ftr's [remember those anyone?] the local council spent £10 million on bus lanes, a non-guided segregated busway, and other infrastructure improvements.

whilst the end of the ftr's in swansea is a complicated issue... not least of which was a coroner's report which stated that part of the "track" was a flawed and dangerous design [ignoring the facts at hand]... the results are none the less very revealing...

you would expect that the redesign of the roads involved would involve just moving the bus lanes to a more "normal" pattern wouldn't you? so that the buses would still have the advantage over cars.... er no, the bus lanes are being removed in toto so no priority for buses... furthermore the number of lanes for general usage are being halved.... can anyone see what the results will be? furthermore the gates at either end of the segregated busway have now been locked open for over a year... how long before the council decide to make it a general usage road to alleviate congestion on other local roads?

No, by all means have a reasoned debate on the pro's and cons of any scheme ON IT'S OWN MERITS, but please do not revert to the usual RAILWAYS GOOD BUSWAYS BAD mantra.. after all... isn't a guided bus just a rubber tired, diesel powered tram? after all a guided busway has to be signed off by the railway inspectorate before it can be put into operation...

 

[mr_jrt]

Indeed, but that penetration of the city centre is on heavily congested roads, and I can't imagine they have any chance whatsoever of keeping time on the core sections of their routes. The fact they're overloaded suggests to me they need more capacity, and short of double-decker-bendy buses, then you start having to think about existing solutions to that, and those solutions are trams or trains. Having good local bus services feeding into rail stations would provide the coverage the guided bus option has with the speed and capacity a rail option has.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed, but that penetration of the city centre is on heavily congested roads, and I can't imagine they have any chance whatsoever of keeping time on the core sections of their routes. The fact they're overloaded suggests to me they need more capacity, and short of double-decker-bendy buses, then you start having to think about existing solutions to that, and those solutions are trams or trains. Having good local bus services feeding into rail stations would provide the coverage the guided bus option has with the speed and capacity a rail option has.

Firstly in Cambridge, not that many people actually want to get to the immediate station area. The City Centre is 1 mile distant, Addenbrooke's Hospital even more, requiring onward bus or cycle. Your suggestion of bus>rail>bus via interchange hubs won't cut the mustard with most people - Cambridge station is too far out with a good chunk of the surroundimg streets actually residential (terraced/semis) in nature.

In Cambridge, the three roads that connect the busway to the city centre (Histon Road, Milton Road and Hills Road) all have decent bus lanes and bus priority measure, particularly Milton Road.

Casual observation is that while the buses may not be good at 'right time' performance, Stagecoach seem to be good at at least keeping an evenly spaced 8 buses an hour service on the go - what the 'core' of the busway passengers actually want.

Abd when you're in Cambridge, buses drop you off right in town via bus-only gates. Compare that to the car alternative of driving round the unintuitive congested road system to end up queueing to get into a premium priced car park at the end (https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/grand-arcade-car-park).

 

[radamfi]

Busways don't need to be guided unless there are specific reasons, for example limited space on a former railway track. The Netherlands probably has the most segregated busway in Europe but none of it is guided.

 

[gingerheid]

Conjecture.

Totally, in almost the same way as the idea that if it had been a railway it would have been wonderful.

I think it's a very sensible conjecture, as we know that there isn't the track capacity for a high frequency service, as we know that nationally there has been a problem with stock availability, as we can look at what happened to services like Ebbw Vale and Alloa that are similar routes that begged to be given the capacity and journey options to allow them to be more successful than they were allowed to be, and as of course we can look at what's (not) happening to Cambridge North (which arrived very late indeed has gone from 4 fast or semi-fast London services in the May timetable to 1).

Busways don't need to be guided unless there are specific reasons, for example limited space on a former railway track. The Netherlands probably has the most segregated busway in Europe but none of it is guided.

You're right... except, and the illogical nature of this genuinely secretly burns inside me, passengers like it. I have no idea why the Dickens they do so. It's not even the fastest bus from Huntingdon to Cambridge! But they do, and that's important. My loves it and calls it the tram. It's really infuriatingly mental.

If I were to stick my neck out and make two predictions for the future of CGB:

- It will reach capacity once people in Northstowe start using it and this is going to be a problem that will only be relieved by the new A14 opening and some people heading towards cars again
- It will then disintegrate into dust and the question of whether to replace it is going to be a real headache. Because of the construction problems mentioning busways is political suicide, yet it is actually a really essential and fundamental part of the transport infrastructure in the area!

 

[Dentonian]

Noting that this thread talks about the pros and cons of Guided busways in general, and agreeing with Teflon Lettuce that such opinions are literally pre-judged the problem is you have to take into account the politics as well as the economics, social effects and practicalities. Without political (small "p") interference; anything involving buses rather than rail should be considerably cheaper per mile and have a shorter lead in time. Then there is the social aspect. Even with limited stops, buses are usually more inclusive than rail simply simply because stops are closer together. I think we've already discussed the Leigh Guided Busway elsewhere, noting that it has achieved almost DOUBLE the forecast ridership and still has stops reasonably close together and well placed near road junctions and footpaths for local commuters.
Its also interesting to note comments about incursions on the Cambridge Busway. Those local to phase III Metrolink lines in particular, will know that cars frequently get driven (deliberately or accidentally) on to Tram lines. There have been seperate ASB problems on the LGB, but accidental vehicular incursions are far rarer.

 

[radamfi]

You're right... except, and the illogical nature of this genuinely secretly burns inside me, passengers like it. I have no idea why the Dickens they do so. It's not even the fastest bus from Huntingdon to Cambridge! But they do, and that's important. My loves it and calls it the tram. It's really infuriatingly mental.

But people might also like a dedicated bus only road that isn't guided. Guiding makes sense between Cambridge and St Ives as there is a former track bed and guiding means you can have buses passing each other close to each other at 100 mph closing speed. I could present the example of the 25 km long Haarlem to Schiphol segregated busway which people also seem to like. It is extremely lavish for a bus route in having train-style level crossings complete with barriers, long tunnels and viaducts. Dutch Wikipedia says it cost 231.6 million euros, excluding VAT. But it isn't guided. The highly celebrated and heavily used BRT systems in South America don't use guiding, as far as I know.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But people might also like a dedicated bus only road that isn't guided. Guiding makes sense between Cambridge and St Ives as there is a former track bed and guiding means you can have buses passing each other close to each other at 100 mph closing speed. The highly celebrated and heavily used BRT systems in South America don't use guiding, as far as I know.

Indeed, and within the UK, we also have non guided busways. Runcorn is nearly 50 years old and we have much more recent examples, whether that be the Eclipse scheme in Fareham and the much delayed Metrobus in Bristol is largely non guided except a couple of small sections where the footprint is narrow and so supports guided bus.

However, I do take the point that gingerheid makes. I have non bus-using friends who live in Huntingdon and Histon and were it "just a bus", it just wouldn't have the kudos or image. That guided bus "specialness" does have some worth. I've experienced it a few times and, taking on board the challenges it has had, it is a winner. Think Teflon has it right when looking at Luton and also when he rightly points out - we don't need to be dogmatic when it comes to Busway vs. Tram vs. Heavy Rail. They all have their place in the right circumstances.

The problems that Cambridgeshire has had highlighted are equally applicable to other public transport projects - for cost over-runs, implementation delays, accidents through excess speed, you can equally point to Edinburgh, Sheffield or Croydon tram operations.

 

[Abpj17]

If it's a non-guided bus way, cars invariably sneak on to it.

In Dunstable this happened and they eventually gave up and just opened it up to all traffic. (Albeit only a short section, I'm less sure about that risk with a longer section / better markings / less chronic congestion)

 

[radamfi]

If it's a non-guided bus way, cars invariably sneak on to it.

Not if you install a car trap.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Not if you install a car trap.

Not always practicable - the Bristol is a mix of guided bus, bus only roads and bus lanes. As always, depends on the local circumstances.

The worry about a non guided busway is when a local politician gets the idea (in between complaining about football transfers) of opening up roads/bus lanes to all traffic!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

If it's a non-guided bus way, cars invariably sneak on to it.

In Dunstable this happened and they eventually gave up and just opened it up to all traffic. (Albeit only a short section, I'm less sure about that risk with a longer section / better markings / less chronic congestion)

which section is that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not if you install a car trap.

Better than a car trap (on a non guided busway) is a camera so you can just charge them £80 (or whatever) a go. A nice income stream, and won't cause disruption.

Teflon Lettuce - I have no love for Arriva at all (in any form - I find both their bus and train operations to be lackadaisical in the extreme), but as a user I find Arriva's bus service in MK to be markedly superior to MK Metro's, both in terms of vehicle standard and frequencies, as well as running times (by getting rid of the ludicrous contact-based smartcard scheme Metro used to use that took longer than a cash transaction to process). Coverage isn't quite as good, but I'd rather a short walk to a 10-15 minute frequency fast service than a slow hourly one past my door. (Indeed, where I'm located I have exactly that choice, and it's the 4 or 7 I go for, not the 20-whatever-it-is). That said, I do wish Stagey hadn't been forced to flog up on competition grounds - I expect had they been able to stay we could have had something very, very good.

As for London - where would it go? It works in Cambridgeshire because it's a converted former railway that serves as a useful trunk for buses from multiple destinations. It sort of works in Luton on similar grounds, though really it would have probably made more sense to dual Hatters Way with conventional bus lanes for that bit, at least. But London is more like German cities in how it uses buses - they're primarily used to get to the Tube, and there's no one big trunk route that is an obvious candidate, the network is somewhat web-like. Any corridor of very high demand has pretty much already got a rail option, and very little has ever been closed due to the high demand.