Guided Busways

[TheGrandWazoo]

Never say never. You have no idea what Cambridge in general and Granta Park in particular will be like in 10 or 20 years time.

10 years ago the Biomedical Campus was arable fields with no business case for Cambridge South.

Oh come on... building a station on an existing line is one thing and is something that we've seen across the UK, even in places where it's rather less compelling like Reston or Bow Street.

The construction of a heavy rail line that ends up as a stub in a business park. Nope - not going to happen. Instead, you could have a guided busway that would enable a link onward to Linton and Haverhill which is something rail can't now provide. However, as you seem to have a "train or nothing" perspective, I suspect that you'll have to deal with the latter.

I thought the point of the guided part was that you could have busses going faster than they normally could safely on road made from a tight former BR track, not to keep car traffic away from it

It's a bit of both. To be honest, though, cameras on entry and "give ways" at tight bridges would probably have worked just as well.

Yes @renegademaster - the primary objective is to use the guided busway to allow higher running speeds to be achieved. However, the ability to keep out non-car traffic is a by-product though as @Bletchleyite is correct in saying, technology such as geofencing and entry cameras etc do help in enforcement.

Another unintended benefit (over simply having bus only roads as in South Hants) is that whilst restricting existing non Busway traffic, it does help in safeguarding the route. In terms of the latter, much of the Bristol metrobus scheme isn't guided bus but simply bus lanes (not even dedicated road). What chance that some populist mayor comes along and simply says that they'll remove that? Much harder if it's guided bus, but that's again not a reason in itself.

 

[greenline712]

Aren't we losing sight of what the objectives of a busway (or whatever type, guided or otherwise) should be? There are more than one . . .

1. A Busway should to be to enable travellers to get somewhere more quickly. If a Busway doesn't link appropriate origins and destinations, then it will fail.
2. A Busway should have more chance of succeeding if it covers already known passenger flows. It will then be possible to use an existing passenger base to support the early years whilst new passengers are won over.
3. A Busway should NOT be built just because there is some form of infrastructure available, maybe from a previous use. If a route runs between two points that do not need connecting, then it will fail.

We bang on about Cambridge, about Dunstable, about Gosport . . . which are lucky in that a "conversion" was possible and there were existing passenger flows. But what about Crawley? In its way pretty successful, even though it's rather disjointed.
What about Dartford? Entirely new infrastructure, not quite serving existing passenger flows, but nonetheless growing its own passenger usage . . . and seemingly the most successful of the non-guided variants. The amount of new building, both housing and industrial, will have helped here, although it's been slow to build passengers.

We cannot simply build something, or provide a new route, and hope that the passengers will come . . . that's a truism that we're seeing across the whole bus industry nowadays. It is essential that we know where our existing passengers want to travel, and cater for them, before searching out new, and possibly fleeting, markets.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Aren't we losing sight of what the objectives of a busway (or whatever type, guided or otherwise) should be? There are more than one . . .

1. A Busway should to be to enable travellers to get somewhere more quickly. If a Busway doesn't link appropriate origins and destinations, then it will fail.
2. A Busway should have more chance of succeeding if it covers already known passenger flows. It will then be possible to use an existing passenger base to support the early years whilst new passengers are won over.
3. A Busway should NOT be built just because there is some form of infrastructure available, maybe from a previous use. If a route runs between two points that do not need connecting, then it will fail.

We bang on about Cambridge, about Dunstable, about Gosport . . . which are lucky in that a "conversion" was possible and there were existing passenger flows. But what about Crawley? In its way pretty successful, even though it's rather disjointed.
What about Dartford? Entirely new infrastructure, not quite serving existing passenger flows, but nonetheless growing its own passenger usage . . . and seemingly the most successful of the non-guided variants. The amount of new building, both housing and industrial, will have helped here, although it's been slow to build passengers.

We cannot simply build something, or provide a new route, and hope that the passengers will come . . . that's a truism that we're seeing across the whole bus industry nowadays. It is essential that we know where our existing passengers want to travel, and cater for them, before searching out new, and possibly fleeting, markets.

I absolutely agree. I hope I'm not coming across as anti-rail (believe me, I'm not) but often I see the justification for reopening lines as nothing more than that they still exist in some form rather than a truly defined business case and customer need.

In some respect, the Bristol route m2 route does harness old infrastructure, repurposed for an existing and defined requirement. Unfortunately, it suffers from simply spitting out buses into a congested central area with insufficient bus priority (similar to Cambridge). There is a balance to be obtained by avoiding the "build it and they will come" mentality whilst ensuring that potential routes are protected and that, with large scale developments, there is the potential to introduce busways if justifiable. Again, back to Bristol, part of the justification for the new roads that were constructed was that they were futureproofing bus access to areas that they seek to develop. I hope that is continued and delivered when that comes.

 

[Magdalia]

The construction of a heavy rail line that ends up as a stub in a business park. Nope - not going to happen. Instead, you could have a guided busway that would enable a link onward to Linton and Haverhill which is something rail can't now provide.

A railway to Granta Park wouldn't be a stub in a business park (and Granta Park is not an ordinary business park). It would be a station, next to the A11/A505, that served Granta Park, but also acted as a parkway and bus interchange station for Linton, Haverhill, and lots of other villages nearby. That doesn't need much new infrastructure beyond Granta Park, and only about 4 miles of railway.

The huge advantage that a railway has over a busway, in this example, is that it can go through Stapleford and Great Shelford on the existing railway, whereas a busway can only go round the east side of them on a new alignment. Between Cambridge and Granta Park a busway would only be able to use the rail trackbed for about 2 miles, and requires 4-5 miles of new alignment before it reaches the rail trackbed east of Stapleford.

 

[Deerfold]

A railway to Granta Park wouldn't be a stub in a business park (and Granta Park is not an ordinary business park). It would be a station, next to the A11/A505, that served Granta Park, but also acted as a parkway and bus interchange station for Linton, Haverhill, and lots of other villages nearby. That doesn't need much new infrastructure beyond Granta Park, and only about 4 miles of railway.

The huge advantage that a railway has over a busway, in this example, is that it can go through Stapleford and Great Shelford on the existing railway, whereas a busway can only go round the east side of them on a new alignment. Between Cambridge and Granta Park a busway would only be able to use the rail trackbed for about 2 miles, and requires 4-5 miles of new alignment before it reaches the rail trackbed east of Stapleford.

Why is it *only* 4 miles of railway, but 4-5 miles of new alignment for a busway seems to be a major problem?

 

[Magdalia]

Why is it *only* 4 miles of railway

That's roughly the distance, all along the old trackbed, from the junction with the main line at Shelford to Granta Park.

but 4-5 miles of new alignment for a busway

That's roughly the distance needed to get a busway from the end of the existing busway on the Biomedical Campus to the point east of Stapleford where it can start to use the old railway trackbed.

a busway seems to be a major problem?

The problem is that none of that 4-5 miles is on existing trackbed, it is all new alignment.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

A railway to Granta Park wouldn't be a stub in a business park (and Granta Park is not an ordinary business park). It would be a station, next to the A11/A505, that served Granta Park, but also acted as a parkway and bus interchange station for Linton, Haverhill, and lots of other villages nearby. That doesn't need much new infrastructure beyond Granta Park, and only about 4 miles of railway.

The huge advantage that a railway has over a busway, in this example, is that it can go through Stapleford and Great Shelford on the existing railway, whereas a busway can only go round the east side of them on a new alignment. Between Cambridge and Granta Park a busway would only be able to use the rail trackbed for about 2 miles, and requires 4-5 miles of new alignment before it reaches the rail trackbed east of Stapleford.

It's a large business park, granted, but that's what it is. It is also a four mile stub, and isn't there already a parkway station for the M11/A505?

I don't see that it will work as a parkway for the A11 as it's unlikely that will appeal in getting folks to drive to 8 miles south (the wrong direction) to get onto a heavy rail line (at what frequency?) to be deposited into a Cambridge station that isn't centrally located.

I'll lay good money that a rail link to Granta Park (and further) won't appear in my lifetime and I reckon I've got a possible 30 years in me.

 

[Magdalia]

It's a large business park, granted

Like the Biomedical Campus it is expanding rapidly, and like the Biomedical Campus it has some very powerful voices in the life science industries located there.

to be deposited into a Cambridge station that isn't centrally located

Cambridge station is centrally located for the huge amount of employment that has grown up around it in the last 15 years.

The "Cambridge station isn't centrally located" argument is old hat, it has not been significant for a long time now. The distance between the main station and the old city is only relevant for tourism and retail, for the high tech industries that are driving economic growth in Cambridge, it is of no consequence. What they want is a transport system that gets their employees from home to work and back again, and interconnectivity between the three main business sites around the old station, on the Biomedical Campus and in Granta Park.

I'll lay good money that a rail link to Granta Park (and further) won't appear in my lifetime and I reckon I've got a possible 30 years in me

It may take time, it almost certainly won't be in the first half of your 30 years. But, in Cambridge, things that would have been thought impossible 15 years ago have happened, and I expect even more of that in the next 15 years.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Like the Biomedical Campus it is expanding rapidly, and like the Biomedical Campus it has some very powerful voices in the life science industries located there.


Cambridge station is centrally located for the huge amount of employment that has grown up around it in the last 15 years.

The "Cambridge station isn't centrally located" argument is old hat, it has not been significant for a long time now. The distance between the main station and the old city is only relevant for tourism and retail, for the high tech industries that are driving economic growth in Cambridge, it is of no consequence. What they want is a transport system that gets their employees from home to work and back again, and interconnectivity between the three main business sites around the old station, on the Biomedical Campus and in Granta Park.




It may take time, it almost certainly won't be in the first half of your 30 years. But, in Cambridge, things that would have been thought impossible 15 years ago have happened, and I expect even more of that in the next 15 years.

You seem to dismiss anything that runs contrary to your opinions as "old hat" or that the argument has already been had when those are still very valid concerns. The single most important traffic destination to Cambridge is still the core city centre. That is still the case.

As for the expanding Granta Park, it has 3700 people on site now, and that will increase to 6200 with phase 2. Even if that were to then treble in size, you're still talking about a dedicated heavy rail link for place that is massively Monday to Friday 0800-1800 orientated, and is about half the size of somewhere like Haverhill yet you're suggesting that they will spend tens and tens of millions to have a link there. I assume you'll also want them to spend £10m each on stations at Sawston and Great Shelford; the sums just don't add up.

There is a finite amount of funding (even with s106) and that's why CSET and busways are being actively discussed. There's a place for heavy rail, and if the lines were in situ, that would help but 4 miles of brand new railway is going to be prohibitively expensive compared to a busway, guided or otherwise.

 

[Deerfold]

That's roughly the distance, all along the old trackbed, from the junction with the main line at Shelford to Granta Park.

That's roughly the distance needed to get a busway from the end of the existing busway on the Biomedical Campus to the point east of Stapleford where it can start to use the old railway trackbed.

The problem is that none of that 4-5 miles is on existing trackbed, it is all new alignment.

I think you missed my point with your first two comments. I wasn't asking about the accuracy of your measurements.

A Busway on a new alignment sounds like a lot less work than putting in a new railway, even on an existing alignment.

The "Cambridge station isn't centrally located" argument is old hat, it has not been significant for a long time now. The distance between the main station and the old city is only relevant for tourism and retail, for the high tech industries that are driving economic growth in Cambridge, it is of no consequence. What they want is a transport system that gets their employees from home to work and back again, and interconnectivity between the three main business sites around the old station, on the Biomedical Campus and in Granta Park.

So, still a lot of people wanting to get into Central Cambridge.

I visited one of these high tech industries last month, taking somewhat longer on the bus than when the Busway was in operation (I hadn't realised it wasn't and assumed there was maintenance going on). There were lots of people at Cambridge station and on the road heading into Central Cambridge.

 

[Magdalia]

The single most important traffic destination to Cambridge is still the core city centre. That is still the case.

No it isn't. Cambridge transport is now multi-nodal with the station area and the Biomedical Campus the key employment hubs.

As for the expanding Granta Park, it has 3700 people on site now, and that will increase to 6200 with phase 2.

I doubt the Granta Park will stop at phase 2, that's just what is planned at present.

is about half the size of somewhere like Haverhill

That's an irrelevant comparison. Everyone working at Granta Park needs to get in and out every working day, that doesn't apply to the population of Haverhill. And the people of Haverhill, Linton etc would be using the train from Granta Park, just like the people of Saffron Walden use Audley End.

I assume you'll also want them to spend £10m each on stations at Sawston and Great Shelford

Shelford already has a station, one of the advantages of rail is that Shelford station is already there and in a much more central location for all of Great Shelford, Little Shelford and Stapleford than anywhere that a busway could stop.

I expect Sawston to expand towards the railway alignment anyway, if that happened then there would be a station.

So, still a lot of people wanting to get into Central Cambridge.

But it is not growing rapidly, if anything it is in gentle decline. People have managed to get between the station and the old City since the year dot, with plenty of buses for those who find it too far to walk or cycle. They don't need anything new.

There is a finite amount of funding (even with s106) and that's why CSET and busways are being actively discussed. There's a place for heavy rail, and if the lines were in situ, that would help but 4 miles of brand new railway is going to be prohibitively expensive compared to a busway, guided or otherwise.

A Busway on a new alignment sounds like a lot less work than putting in a new railway, even on an existing alignment.

Under the current funding arrangements you are both right, but with a Cambridge Development Corporation, or similar, things can be very different. Everything will depend on what powers and funding it has. I expect that to include private sector investment, and on a bigger scale than section 106.

 

[johncrossley]

Who in their right mind drives into Cambridge city centre? Maybe if you have private parking provided for you (in that case you are unlikely to switch anyway) but if you are relying on public car parks, they cost the earth. For example, Grafton West car park (which is not even that central) costs £30.80 for over 5 hours (if you arrive between 8 and 10 am). Grand Arcade costs £33.10!

Grafton West car park

The car park is located near the Grafton shopping centre, a 15 or 20-minute walk away from the city centre. It’s the nearest car park to the Burleigh Street shopping area.

www.cambridge.gov.uk

Grand Arcade car park

The nearest multi-storey car park to the city centre, the colleges and the riverside.

www.cambridge.gov.uk

So I would suggest that for the city centre, there is a captive market for buses/trains/bikes. It is therefore more urgent to fix transport access to the business parks and hospitals around the edge of the city which are presumably car dependent at the moment.

 

[J-2739]

Whilst I respect everyone's respective knowledge of the subject, I really do think that some people need to come to Cambridge today to fully appreciate the extent that the city has transformed during the last few years. Even a visit in 2021 is not sufficient; the new business district (CB1) has only really blossomed during the past couple of years, and there may be many who have no reason to go to the traditional centre. It is almost like the establishment of King's Cross as a destination; people arriving at the terminal are not necessarily heading to the City, or Canary Wharf.

Cambridge is truly becoming the multi-centre city.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Shelford already has a station, one of the advantages of rail is that Shelford station is already there and in a much more central location for all of Great Shelford, Little Shelford and Stapleford than anywhere that a busway could stop.

I expect Sawston to expand towards the railway alignment anyway, if that happened then there would be a station.

Apologies - I meant Stapleford (must've had Great Shelford in my mind). Sorry for that confusion

I doubt the Granta Park will stop at phase 2, that's just what is planned at present.

If you'd included my quote a bit further on...

As for the expanding Granta Park, it has 3700 people on site now, and that will increase to 6200 with phase 2. Even if that were to then treble in size, you're still talking about a dedicated heavy rail link for place that is massively Monday to Friday 0800-1800 orientated

...I did say that even if it's three times larger, it's still not going to justify a heavy rail link.

Whilst I respect everyone's respective knowledge of the subject, I really do think that some people need to come to Cambridge today to fully appreciate the extent that the city has transformed during the last few years. Even a visit in 2021 is not sufficient; the new business district (CB1) has only really blossomed during the past couple of years, and there may be many who have no reason to go to the traditional centre. It is almost like the establishment of King's Cross as a destination; people arriving at the terminal are not necessarily heading to the City, or Canary Wharf.

Cambridge is truly becoming the multi-centre city.

Indeed, I have been. The pace of construction is impressive - I ran at Storeys Field parkrun in a huge development behind Madingley P&R that didn't existing ten years ago.

The point was...

The single most important traffic destination to Cambridge is still the core city centre. That is still the case.

...which isn't to say that there are other traffic objectives aren't being created. However, my point was almost the dismissal of the city centre being important when it remains the single largest traffic objectives. I fully take the point that Cambridge is becoming larger, with several other smaller but substantial traffic destinations being created/developed. That's why Cambridge does need alternative transport solutions; as such, Cambridge South station is a welcome and needed addition to the transport mix. That growth needs to be catered for in the most appropriate manner.

And this is my point. My specialism is buses and I was brought up on them. However, I studied at university to get a transport degree; I'm a public transport advocate (ask my wife) and this week has seen me travel by bus, two different light rail operations, and by heavy rail. We have to fully accept that different modes have their very important roles, and that can include suburban rail. In this instance, I just don't think it is and, whilst I'd love to see light rail in Cambridge, I think delivery of any brand new scheme in the UK is really challenging. Therefore, and perhaps this is reflected in CSET, busways are under serious consideration. I welcome Cambridge South and other rail developments but heavy rail is only part of the mix but, for some, it would seem that the ONLY answer is ever heavy rail, and if that means nothing is done for 20 years, then so be it. Sorry, but that's not something I can go with.

 

[greenline712]

We have to fully accept that different modes have their very important roles, and that can include suburban rail. In this instance, I just don't think it is and, whilst I'd love to see light rail in Cambridge, I think delivery of any brand new scheme in the UK is really challenging. Therefore, and perhaps this is reflected in CSET, busways are under serious consideration.

Absolutely . . . we (as a society) seem to be wedded to "it must be heavy rail or nothing"; and don't even consider alternatives. I would love to see heavy rail used more, but the huge costs involved, and the extended timescales in planning and construction mean that any benefits can only come years (decades) after conception.

I'm a busman by career, but have always maintained an interest elsewhere . . . there are many modes of "public transport" (yes . . . even taxis have their place!); and we should be more selective in which mode we use for new projects.

I attended a meeting at Heathrow Airport in around 2018, when they were bemoaning the delay in the arrival of the Elizabeth Line as having a bad effect on the progress of their "Green Transport Plan". I piped up and said that buses could have an (almost) immediate effect, in that a bus service could be started only around 4-6 months from conception, including planning, resourcing of buses and drivers, and at a fraction of the cost of any alternatives.
I must have been listened to, although the two professional "transport consultants" pooh-poohed my idea at the time; as Heathrow have since tried out several bus routes linking surrounding areas with the Airport . . . some have been worthy of further development, some have fallen by the wayside (although the effects of Covid should take some blame there!).

My point is that buses can be used to trial ideas very quickly, and at a much lower cost than a busway, tram or rail link. If the usage is there, then develop them further . . . if not, then "nothing gained, not much lost".

 

[Magdalia]

My specialism is buses and I was brought up on them. However, I studied at university to get a transport degree; I'm a public transport advocate (ask my wife) and this week has seen me travel by bus, two different light rail operations, and by heavy rail. We have to fully accept that different modes have their very important roles, and that can include suburban rail.

My education and career was in economics, plus I grew up in Cambridge and, after I moved away, returned frequently to visit my parents. A few years ago I was able to move back to the Fens and have a ringside seat to watch the biggest UK economic growth phenomenon since financial deregulation nearly 40 years ago, and the subsequent economic growth in the City of London and Docklands.

Buses already make an essential contribution to the Cambridge economy, services that I fully support. For example:

• Park And Ride serves the retail economy in the old City, keeping lots of shoppers out of their cars.
• The Universal service, funded by the University, has transformed public transport on the west side of the City.
• Cambridge is the most economically unequal place in the UK, buses are a lifeline for the poorest, especially Stagecoach routes 1 and 3.
• Many 11-18 year old children rely on the buses for home/school journeys. Here Cambridge's unique secondary education structure plays a big part: 11-16 is widely distributed, particularly in the Village Colleges, while 16-18 is highly concentrated in the 2 big VIth form colleges and Cambridge Regional College.

As an economist I know that expanding bus services in Cambridge is very difficult because of 2 massive supply side constraints.

• Road space within the City is finite, manifesting itself as congestion. This has been a problem for a long time, and is heavily affected by three variables: school traffic, road works and weather. Congestion has got much worse recently. The Cambridge road network is almost entirely single carriageway, which means temporary traffic lights for road works, and council data shows that applications for permission to dig up roads are currently at nearly double the level of pre-covid. Weather matters: Cambridge seizes up every time it rains because lots of cyclists switch to motorised transport. The latest round of Stagecoach service cuts, coming in later this month, are a response to the increased congestion.
• There is a shortage of bus drivers, something that has developed rapidly since covid. The Cambridge labour market is very hot, a combination of rapid economic growth, demographic trends, and shortage of affordable housing. In the short term there is very little that can be done about the shortage of bus drivers, and the autumn 2022 Stagecoach service cuts were mainly to concentrated limited driving resources on their most profitable routes. There is no point in investing in new bus services if there is nobody to drive the buses.

The reason that I'm such a strong advocate for suburban rail in Cambridge is that it isn't affected by either of those constraints. Rail has its own capacity issues, but Cambridge South means that from next year, for the first time ever, it will be possible to get from one side of Cambridge to the other quickly, just by getting on a train. Cambridge has to maximise the use of the railway because it is the only transport artery through Cambridge not affected by congestion on the roads. And most of us here know that train drivers are well paid, can afford to live in the Cambridge area, and with no shortage of potential new recruits. There is no supply side constraint for train drivers.

I don't doubt that there are many other places where buses are a more appropriate solution than heavy rail. I don't comment on them because I don't know enough about the local circumstances. But I do know, from frequent experience, the local circumstances in Cambridge, and can apply the economics to see what will work and what won't.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

My education and career was in economics, plus I grew up in Cambridge and, after I moved away, returned frequently to visit my parents. A few years ago I was able to move back to the Fens and have a ringside seat to watch the biggest UK economic growth phenomenon since financial deregulation nearly 40 years ago, and the subsequent economic growth in the City of London and Docklands.

Buses already make an essential contribution to the Cambridge economy, services that I fully support. For example:

• Park And Ride serves the retail economy in the old City, keeping lots of shoppers out of their cars.
• The Universal service, funded by the University, has transformed public transport on the west side of the City.
• Cambridge is the most economically unequal place in the UK, buses are a lifeline for the poorest, especially Stagecoach routes 1 and 3.
• Many 11-18 year old children rely on the buses for home/school journeys. Here Cambridge's unique secondary education structure plays a big part: 11-16 is widely distributed, particularly in the Village Colleges, while 16-18 is highly concentrated in the 2 big VIth form colleges and Cambridge Regional College.

As an economist I know that expanding bus services in Cambridge is very difficult because of 2 massive supply side constraints.

• Road space within the City is finite, manifesting itself as congestion. This has been a problem for a long time, and is heavily affected by three variables: school traffic, road works and weather. Congestion has got much worse recently. The Cambridge road network is almost entirely single carriageway, which means temporary traffic lights for road works, and council data shows that applications for permission to dig up roads are currently at nearly double the level of pre-covid. Weather matters: Cambridge seizes up every time it rains because lots of cyclists switch to motorised transport. The latest round of Stagecoach service cuts, coming in later this month, are a response to the increased congestion.
• There is a shortage of bus drivers, something that has developed rapidly since covid. The Cambridge labour market is very hot, a combination of rapid economic growth, demographic trends, and shortage of affordable housing. In the short term there is very little that can be done about the shortage of bus drivers, and the autumn 2022 Stagecoach service cuts were mainly to concentrated limited driving resources on their most profitable routes. There is no point in investing in new bus services if there is nobody to drive the buses.

The reason that I'm such a strong advocate for suburban rail in Cambridge is that it isn't affected by either of those constraints. Rail has its own capacity issues, but Cambridge South means that from next year, for the first time ever, it will be possible to get from one side of Cambridge to the other quickly, just by getting on a train. Cambridge has to maximise the use of the railway because it is the only transport artery through Cambridge not affected by congestion on the roads. And most of us here know that train drivers are well paid, can afford to live in the Cambridge area, and with no shortage of potential new recruits. There is no supply side constraint for train drivers.

I don't doubt that there are many other places where buses are a more appropriate solution than heavy rail. I don't comment on them because I don't know enough about the local circumstances. But I do know, from frequent experience, the local circumstances in Cambridge, and can apply the economics to see what will work and what won't.

I am not an economist. I have worked in the transport industry (passenger and freight) for >25 years with a lot of commercial experience in that time.

I do take the point on road space being finite and that Cambridge does have its challenges, as do most UK towns and cities. Certainly, there are problems in creating bus priority/additional road space. However, you do seem to be absolutely wedded to suburban rail being the only solution for Cambridge. It's more nuanced that that.

If you wish to apply the economics to this, you're talking about a multi, multi million pound capital investment. Putting a station on an existing line is not cheap - depending on what you go for, it can be >£6m for the most basic facility (such as Bristol Portway) through to £20m for something more substantial such as Reston. The works to create a new branch, for that is what it is, and then run out across the old alignment is going to be extremely expensive. I'm not a rail engineer but the Borders Railway restoration worked out at £10m per mile at 2012 prices. It cost £40m to get Okehampton sorted and that already had a service (of sorts), £80m for Headbolt Lane. Of course, revenue cost will be higher to create capacity but overall, a 15 min headway on a busway will simply be cheaper.

Then look at the benefit. The line won't go to Linton or Haverhill. If Granta Park's "population" increases by 500% (increase for ph2 and then trebled as I opined), will serve approximately 18k people. The usage of the line will be heavily weighted to peak usage and a five day requirement. Please don't suggest that this is Cambridge and the usual patterns of work won't apply in the future. Passenger flows will be heavily skewed with the parkway concept that you cited earlier either a) already catered for by Whittlesford from the South/West or b) unlikely or very limited from North/East. To my mind, I just can't see how a cost benefit analysis for a 5 day, largely uni-directional market will satisfy a figure of that magnitude. That's before we look at the issue of "spades in the ground". UK rail projects are notoriously (and frustratingly) long in their delivery. A busway, and unlikely to be guided for the reasons I've suggested earlier, will deliver benefits more quickly, amd that's why CSET is being actively progressed.

I had already addressed your statement about driver availability but will do so again. Driver recruitment and retention tends to be cyclical. In the 1970s, you couldn't recruit drivers; in the 1980s/1990s, you could actually afford to introduce minibuses that swelled the driver requirement. The issues in 2022 were experienced across the UK and were down to a combination of factors - loss of Eurozone drivers who had returned to countries during 2020/1 and couldn't now return, loss of training capacity during 2020 to manage the usual churn, and a number of people exiting the job market. That 2022 figure is important - unemployment then was 2.8% whilst it's now 4.3% and is actually higher than the East of England and the UK average 6- see ONS figures from Feb 2024. It is still a challenge for operators to recruit and retain but the labour market has most certainly eased over time.

 

[Magdalia]

you're talking about a multi, multi million pound capital investment. Putting a station on an existing line is not cheap - depending on what you go for, it can be >£6m for the most basic facility (such as Bristol Portway) through to £20m for something more substantial such as Reston. The works to create a new branch, for that is what it is, and then run out across the old alignment is going to be extremely expensive. I'm not a rail engineer but the Borders Railway restoration worked out at £10m per mile at 2012 prices.

I do think that the sort of money that you are talking about is feasible. For example there was £400m of private sector funding for the Jubilee Line extension 30 years ago.

Then look at the benefit. The line won't go to Linton or Haverhill. If Granta Park's "population" increases by 500% (increase for ph2 and then trebled as I opined), will serve approximately 18k people. The usage of the line will be heavily weighted to peak usage and a five day requirement. Please don't suggest that this is Cambridge and the usual patterns of work won't apply in the future. Passenger flows will be heavily skewed with the parkway concept that you cited earlier either a) already catered for by Whittlesford from the South/West or b) unlikely or very limited from North/East. To my mind, I just can't see how a cost benefit analysis for a 5 day, largely uni-directional market will satisfy a figure of that magnitude.

The market is bidirectional. From Cambridge to Granta Park mainly for work, from Linton/Haverhill area to Cambridge is much more mixed use. As I've already said Granta Park can do for Haverhill what Audley end does for Saffron Walden in terms of getting to/from Cambridge.

I have thought about Whittlesford. It does not have step free access between the platforms and the road access for a so called Parkway station is dire. To make it a proper Parkway station needs significant investment in what would effectively be a new station with improved road access and some from of turnback. But it is an option.

That's before we look at the issue of "spades in the ground". UK rail projects are notoriously (and frustratingly) long in their delivery.

I know, but the development of Cambridge is a decades long project. For the near future development is constrained by the water issue, so there is time to think long term while the water issue is sorted.

I had already addressed your statement about driver availability but will do so again. Driver recruitment and retention tends to be cyclical.

But this time it isn't, it is structural. That's because of demography. Labour supply is shrinking because large numbers of people are reaching retirement, large numbers of people are opting out of the labour market (particularly because of ill health), and the numbers of young people joining the labour market are not enough to compensate.

unemployment then was 2.8% whilst it's now 4.3% and is actually higher than the East of England and the UK average

The East of England is very diverse, and includes lots of areas with higher unemployment, especially coastal towns. The East of England data are not representative of what is happening in Cambridge. The unemployed of Yarmouth and Clacton are not going to be coming to Cambridge to drive buses.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I do think that the sort of money that you are talking about is feasible. For example there was £400m of private sector funding for the Jubilee Line extension 30 years ago.

You're talking about >£100m for a predominantly five day a week transport link. There is no comparison with the Jubilee Line extension.

The market is bidirectional. From Cambridge to Granta Park mainly for work, from Linton/Haverhill area to Cambridge is much more mixed use. As I've already said Granta Park can do for Haverhill what Audley end does for Saffron Walden in terms of getting to/from Cambridge.

I have thought about Whittlesford. It does not have step free access between the platforms and the road access for a so called Parkway station is dire. To make it a proper Parkway station needs significant investment in what would effectively be a new station with improved road access and some from of turnback. But it is an option.

The flows will be skewed, as I said. Whilst some will get the benefit of a link from Linton/Haverhill into Granta Park and the Biomed campus, the others will have to change from bus to train, and then back onto bus to get into central Cambridge

As for saying that Whittlesford can't really act as a parkway as it doesn't have step free access or that road access (it's a minute from the A505) is dire? Really?

I know, but the development of Cambridge is a decades long project. For the near future development is constrained by the water issue, so there is time to think long term while the water issue is sorted.

20 years is not unheard of

But this time it isn't, it is structural. That's because of demography. Labour supply is shrinking because large numbers of people are reaching retirement, large numbers of people are opting out of the labour market (particularly because of ill health), and the numbers of young people joining the labour market are not enough to compensate

It is cyclical because of the way in which technology and social changes impact the labour market. You quoted what happened in 2022, and I did explain that there were fairly exceptional factors at play there. The concern regarding having enough bodies is perhaps more pertinent in areas such as unskilled labour rather than areas such as bus driving.

The East of England is very diverse, and includes lots of areas with higher unemployment, especially coastal towns. The East of England data are not representative of what is happening in Cambridge. The unemployed of Yarmouth and Clacton are not going to be coming to Cambridge to drive buses.

I actually quoted what was happening in Cambridge. Yes, there are areas of higher unemployment (Yarmouth, Harlow) but the unemployment rate is still higher in Cambridge than the UK and East of England average.

I'm going to move on here. You are just going to selectively pick whatever interpretation of data, in whatever manner, with the answer being heavy rail. Not light rail, not busway. For you, the discussion on busways is a closed book whilst, as CSET shows, it is very much something that is being actively pursued. It's been pleasant and respectful (and in that respect, better than some discussions) but I think this is my stop.

 

[Magdalia]

It's been pleasant and respectful (and in that respect, better than some discussions) but I think this is my stop.

I agree with that.

There are points that I would pick up here, but as this is your stop I'll respect that too. Thanks for a thought provoking discussion.

 

[ac6000cw]

I have thought about Whittlesford. It does not have step free access between the platforms and the road access for a so called Parkway station is dire. To make it a proper Parkway station needs significant investment in what would effectively be a new station with improved road access and some from of turnback. But it is an option.

But the access issues at Whittlesford Parkway could be solved at relatively low cost.

(Speculative thoughts) If you moved Whittlesford station about a mile further north so it was between Sawston and the main part of Whittlesford village, you would have two communities with a station in the middle. Then develop the land between/near them into whatever is the current flavour of research/science park combined with housing. This could become a south-of-Cambridge equivalent of the hugely enlarged Waterbeach village (into new town) on the north side of Cambridge that's already happening. Then run a frequent electric shuttle bus between the new Whittlesford station, Granta Park and Babraham Research Campus.

If you still wanted a heavy rail line to Haverhill, peel it off the mainline near the existing Whittlesford station and run it alongside the A505 to the Granta Park area where it could re-join the old Haverhill line alignment.

 

[Magdalia]

(Speculative thoughts) If you moved Whittlesford station about a mile further north so it was between Sawston and the main part of Whittlesford village, you would have two communities with a station in the middle. Then develop the land between/near them into whatever is the current flavour of research/science park combined with housing.

The main difficulty with this is that Whittlesford and Sawston are on opposite sides of the river. Much of the land in between is not developed because it is the flood plain. Road access from both villages to a relocated station would require a new bridge over the river.

A Sawston station next to the Sawston bypass is a possibility, north of where the railway crosses to the east side of the river. That would have much better road access to/from Granta Park, but would be difficult for access from/to Whittlesford village.

 

[GusB]

I think we'll leave it there. The original poster asked why we didn't have more guided busways but the thread quickly developed into a debate specifically about the Cambridge busway. Now it has become a speculative rail discussion and is outwith the scope of this section of the forum.

If anyone wishes to respond to any of the later posts in this thread, please hit "+Quote", go to the Speculative ideas" section and respond in a new thread there.