Harlow Local Plan - proposed Central Line extension

[BayPaul]

Maybe, because LU is out of the franchise system, but a LU extension would still be cheaper than the mainline, no need for subsidy. Would be too expensive to extend without big government grants anyway. BRT is the only viable way of getting Harlow on a cheaper direct public transport mode to London anyway.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your argument, but I don't see how it's possible to say that building a new build line would be cheaper than the existing line.
Is there a great need for lower priced travel to Harlow? Obviously users always want things cheaper, and politicians (local and national) like to say things about reducing commute costs, but I don't understand why anyone would expect them to actually do anything about it, unless there is massive unemployment in Harlow that can only be remedied by sending all the workers to London.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your argument, but I don't see how it's possible to say that building a new build line would be cheaper than the existing line.
Is there a great need for lower priced travel to Harlow? Obviously users always want things cheaper, and politicians (local and national) like to say things about reducing commute costs, but I don't understand why anyone would expect them to actually do anything about it, unless there is massive unemployment in Harlow that can only be remedied by sending all the workers to London.

It wouldn't be, but it's easier to pay a subsidy to a PTE or similar organisation like TfL who manage their own network because they do not have to make franchise payments to the treasury, so a lower payment can be made, plus the service is lower quality (slower and lower overheads) anyway.
Discounting the possibility of Tube extension to Harlow anyway, a subsidy for an integrated fare system for Harlow District residents including a BRT to Epping Station and travel throughout Zones 1-6 should be negotiable with TfL, maybe making the price of the BRT ride included in the tube fare using the subsidy.

 

[Bald Rick]

but a LU extension would still be cheaper than the mainline,

an LU extension is still a new railway line. It’s just the same in cost terms.

no need for subsidy

How have you reached that conclusion?

 

[BayPaul]

It wouldn't be, but it's easier to pay a subsidy to a PTE or similar organisation like TfL who manage their own network because they do not have to make franchise payments to the treasury, so a lower payment can be made, plus the service is lower quality (slower and lower overheads) anyway.
Discounting the possibility of Tube extension to Harlow anyway, a subsidy for an integrated fare system for Harlow District residents including a BRT to Epping Station and travel throughout Zones 1-6 should be negotiable with TfL, maybe making the price of the BRT ride included in the tube fare using the subsidy.

A slower service probably costs more to run than a faster one (it needs more trains and more staff per passenger mile)
I would have thought it would be easier to deal with Greater Anglia (GA), to negotiate a subsidy, as all you need to do is persuade them that they will make at least as much money as they currently do - as a commercial company their only mission is to maximise profit. For TfL, not only do you need to convince them that they will make more money, you also need to convince them that it wouldn't be to the detriment of London.
As I understand it, you just want the passengers who currently travel via Epping to take a direct service to Harlow instead, but at the same price. This means that TfL would have no additional income, but significantly more costs. If these passengers transferred to GA instead, then GA would have no additional costs, but could potentially have more income (more passengers, but at a lower ticket price), to the required subsidy would be less.

I really don't know why I typed all that though, as there is no way a council would take either option!

There is nothing to stop the council paying for a free bus to Epping Station - no need for BRT or for any complex integrated fare system if they really wanted to (which I doubt they do!)

 

[AlastairFraser]

an LU extension is still a new railway line. It’s just the same in cost terms.



How have you reached that conclusion?

If there was an integrated BRT system included in the tube price, it would make the Tube and BRT from Harlow a cheaper alternative than the bus/car and Tube combo/M11 into London/ mainline railway. Harlow's population is projected to increase by 65 percent over the next few decades - most of the residents will continue to come from London and often will commute to London for the jobs that they had when living there. If even 10 percent of those new Harlow residents (8700 extra residents) bought season tickets at 2708.00, that amounts to 23.559 million. A BRT line with 15 min frequency would cost no more than 2 million a year to operate, leaving TfL with 21.559 million pounds profit.
Harlow Council would receive plenty of Community Infrastructure Levy from the extra 20 -30k homes to pay for the necessary infrastructure.

 

[Bald Rick]

Harlow Council would receive plenty of Community Infrastructure Levy from the extra 20 -30k homes to pay for the necessary infrastructure.

not sure how many CIL deals you’ve been involved in, but all those homes might generate enough CIL to pay for a mile of railway.

 

[AlbertBeale]

If there was an integrated BRT system included in the tube price, it would make the Tube and BRT from Harlow a cheaper alternative than the bus/car and Tube combo/M11 into London/ mainline railway. Harlow's population is projected to increase by 65 percent over the next few decades - most of the residents will continue to come from London and often will commute to London for the jobs that they had when living there. If even 10 percent of those new Harlow residents (8700 extra residents) bought season tickets at 2708.00, that amounts to 23.559 million. A BRT line with 15 min frequency would cost no more than 2 million a year to operate, leaving TfL with 21.559 million pounds profit.
Harlow Council would receive plenty of Community Infrastructure Levy from the extra 20 -30k homes to pay for the necessary infrastructure.

I'm not sure how a 15-min frequency bus service would get 8700 people to the station in the rush hour every day...

 

[stuu]

Harlow Council would receive plenty of Community Infrastructure Levy from the extra 20 -30k homes to pay for the necessary infrastructure.

They should get something like £50m, depending on the size of the properties. Once the schools and doctors surgeries etc are paid for there might be enough left for some bus lane paint or similar

 

[simple simon]

It shouldn't because the Harlow passengers subsidise the existence of Epping tube and the entire Central Line, including much poorer areas in Tower Hamlets/Newham/Waltham Forest, which get a few extra trains an hour out of it. There would not be the same level of ridership at Epping if it were in a higher zone.

My comment about Epping being in a higher fares zone was based upon the situation with stations such as Amersham, Chesham etc.

I've not compared distances between Epping and the London boundary with Amersham / Chesham and the London zonal boundary so cannot suggest which zone Epping should be in - but I am pretty sure it should be in something more expensive than Zone 6.

 

[MikeWh]

My comment about Epping being in a higher fares zone was based upon the situation with stations such as Amersham, Chesham etc.

I've not compared distances between Epping and the London boundary with Amersham / Chesham and the London zonal boundary so cannot suggest which zone Epping should be in - but I am pretty sure it should be in something more expensive than Zone 6.

Of course the difference between Epping and Amersham is that one is the end of the line whereas the other has places further out on National Rail. Chesham obviously has to be the same zone as Amersham. Epping used to be more expensive until a deal was done with the local council after the Ongar shuttle stopped.

 

[simple simon]

Of course the difference between Epping and Amersham is that one is the end of the line whereas the other has places further out on National Rail. Chesham obviously has to be the same zone as Amersham. Epping used to be more expensive until a deal was done with the local council after the Ongar shuttle stopped.

It sounds like the "law of unintended consequences" has been invoked here - the agreement with the local council was (I suspect) with Epping Forest District Council and only meant to benefit local people - not to attract passengers from Harlow.

That said, if Harlow residents were already using Ongar as an alternative railhead then maybe the line should not have been closed.

I recall its being closed was accepted by a government minister who just by chance was also the local area MP - but was leaving Parliament at the next election. I very much wonder if a different decision would have been taken had Steven Norris been intending to defend his seat at the next general election

(I hope that my spelling of his name is correct).

 

[AlastairFraser]

They should get something like £50m, depending on the size of the properties. Once the schools and doctors surgeries etc are paid for there might be enough left for some bus lane paint or similar

Five mil would get you 4 to 5 miles of segregated bus lanes from Harlow TC to the M11 (wide grass verges were left for dualling of the main roads) and a limited access junction off the M11 to the east of Epping station.

It sounds like the "law of unintended consequences" has been invoked here - the agreement with the local council was (I suspect) with Epping Forest District Council and only meant to benefit local people - not to attract passengers from Harlow.

That said, if Harlow residents were already using Ongar as an alternative railhead then maybe the line should not have been closed.

I recall its being closed was accepted by a government minister who just by chance was also the local area MP - but was leaving Parliament at the next election. I very much wonder if a different decision would have been taken had Steven Norris been intending to defend his seat at the next general election

(I hope that my spelling of his name is correct).

Epping is much closer to Harlow than Ongar, so this wasn't particularly bad for them. North Weald Bassett station might be slightly closer, but not worth taking the line off the E and O.

My comment about Epping being in a higher fares zone was based upon the situation with stations such as Amersham, Chesham etc.

I've not compared distances between Epping and the London boundary with Amersham / Chesham and the London zonal boundary so cannot suggest which zone Epping should be in - but I am pretty sure it should be in something more expensive than Zone 6.

Amersham and Chesham are 30 and 33 miles from Charing Cross respectively and are in Bucks unitary, you have to pass through Three Rivers district of Herts to get to the nearest parts of London in Hillingdon/Harrow.
Epping is 19 miles and its' district (Epping Forest) directly borders the London Boroughs of Redbridge and Waltham Forest.
Stations like Caterham are also in Z6 and Caterham is 18 miles from Charing Cross, a similar distance to Epping.

not sure how many CIL deals you’ve been involved in, but all those homes might generate enough CIL to pay for a mile of railway.

I was talking about a BRT - a railway is obviously going to need a major investment by central government.

 

[Busaholic]

It sounds like the "law of unintended consequences" has been invoked here - the agreement with the local council was (I suspect) with Epping Forest District Council and only meant to benefit local people - not to attract passengers from Harlow.

That said, if Harlow residents were already using Ongar as an alternative railhead then maybe the line should not have been closed.

I recall its being closed was accepted by a government minister who just by chance was also the local area MP - but was leaving Parliament at the next election. I very much wonder if a different decision would have been taken had Steven Norris been intending to defend his seat at the next general election

(I hope that my spelling of his name is correct).

Steve Norris made no secret of his interest in bus operations, probably the most pro-bus Minister ever, but ran for Mayor of London at the time when Ken Livingstone won the vote: initially, Norris ran against Jeffrey Archer to secure the Tory nomination. His Mayoral manifesto included a plan to operate all-night Underground services, years before Boris Johnson came up with the same idea!

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'm not sure how a 15-min frequency bus service would get 8700 people to the station in the rush hour every day...

Bi-articulated buses (270 person capacity) at 15 min frequency would transport 3,240 people over the 6am to 9am/ 3pm to 6pm rush hour period each day. Increase the capacity to one every 5 mins and you get 9,720 capacity. The service would take around 20 mins each way with current road timings, each bus can be used 3 times for the 12 journeys each way an hour. That's 4 buses required in each direction, making 8 in service and 4 spares for maintenance margin. The industry consensus seems to be that £200,000 for a single deck bi-articulated EV is the approximate cost - 12 buses using that figure would cost £4.4 million. There is also the prospect of grants from the Office of Low Emission Vehicles to pay for infrastructure - Arriva NW recently got a £4.9 million grant from the OLEV for their fleet of 72 low emission or emission free vehicles.

 

[simple simon]

Thanks... interesting comments and some gap-filling in my knowledge.

I can already hear the British cyclists screaming 'dangerous' at the thought of double-articulated buses being used on our roads. Yet such buses are successfully used in quite a few European conurbations (even in Holland!).

BRT would indeed be the cheapest to implement, but without dedicated rights of way it is very much at the mercy of traffic conditions. Kerb guided busways offer a solution that also minimises land-take.

Whilst some British BRT schemes already exist (and have proven to be popular) this mode of transport is generally thought of being less attractive to passengers than railway type services - trains, trams, etc. Is there not already a bus link between Epping and Harlow?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Thanks... interesting comments and some gap-filling in my knowledge.

I can already hear the British cyclists screaming 'dangerous' at the thought of double-articulated buses being used on our roads. Yet such buses are successfully used in quite a few European conurbations (even in Holland!).

BRT would indeed be the cheapest to implement, but without dedicated rights of way it is very much at the mercy of traffic conditions. Kerb guided busways offer a solution that also minimises land-take.

Whilst some British BRT schemes already exist (and have proven to be popular) this mode of transport is generally thought of being less attractive to passengers than railway type services - trains, trams, etc. Is there not already a bus link between Epping and Harlow?

There is a bus link, but it is slow, expensive and doesn't serve all the parts of Harlow it needs to. This might be partially resolved by a Bus Service Improvement Plan, but I don't think any prospective operator would be interested without a wholesale network transfer to be profitable enough and justify the large investment to bring Harlow's bus network up to standard after years of running down by Arriva.

Such a bus link would not be an issue for cyclists, as in other new towns, a large, comprehensive network of shared cycle/pedestrian paths was provided for cyclists and other non-motorised road users. Cyclists would therefore not be troubled by bi articulated buses as in London where they have to use the same road network as the buses.
Again, being a New Town, the road design is perfect for a BRT, because large verges along the single carriageway arterial road were left for prospective road dualling should road traffic justify it, this space could easily be used for bus lanes. It is only 1.4 miles of road with these verges that needs to be dualled and bus stops devised, the design of the 2 roundabouts along Second Avenue (the road in question) is perfect for a signalised through-about used to enable buses to bypass roundabouts at speed.

The A414 from the Second Avenue roundabout to M11 J7 at Hastingwood is already dualled and the short section from the bus station on the A1019 Velizy Avenue to the start of Second Avenue is already dualled with bus lanes. The journey time along this section would similar to the current car journey time between Harlow Town Centre and M11 Junction 7, currently 6 mins. The section from M11 junction to the projected entry/exit slips for the bus only junction has a current car journey time of 7 mins for 4.3 miles, as it is purely motorway, there is no reason to believe the bus times would be different. The section from the bus-only junction is projected as 3 mins for 1.3 miles.
This gives a total of 16 mins, plus 4 mins recovery time for a 20 mins schedule.

The current bus service 420 operated by TrustyBus from Harlow to Ongar via Epping Station and North Weald Bassett takes 35 mins and runs every 30 mins, a BRT plan running every 5 - 10 mins as I have described above would have a much better chance of encouraging modal shift from car to bus at the right price.
Over half of the town's population lives within a mile's walk from the route and this is only set to increase in future with the planned high density residential development in Harlow Town Centre.

 

[AlbertBeale]

There is a bus link, but it is slow, expensive and doesn't serve all the parts of Harlow it needs to. This might be partially resolved by a Bus Service Improvement Plan, but I don't think any prospective operator would be interested without a wholesale network transfer to be profitable enough and justify the large investment to bring Harlow's bus network up to standard after years of running down by Arriva.

Such a bus link would not be an issue for cyclists, as in other new towns, a large, comprehensive network of shared cycle/pedestrian paths was provided for cyclists and other non-motorised road users. Cyclists would therefore not be troubled by bi articulated buses as in London where they have to use the same road network as the buses.
Again, being a New Town, the road design is perfect for a BRT, because large verges along the single carriageway arterial road were left for prospective road dualling should road traffic justify it, this space could easily be used for bus lanes. It is only 1.4 miles of road with these verges that needs to be dualled and bus stops devised, the design of the 2 roundabouts along Second Avenue (the road in question) is perfect for a signalised through-about used to enable buses to bypass roundabouts at speed.

The A414 from the Second Avenue roundabout to M11 J7 at Hastingwood is already dualled and the short section from the bus station on the A1019 Velizy Avenue to the start of Second Avenue is already dualled with bus lanes. The journey time along this section would similar to the current car journey time between Harlow Town Centre and M11 Junction 7, currently 6 mins. The section from M11 junction to the projected entry/exit slips for the bus only junction has a current car journey time of 7 mins for 4.3 miles, as it is purely motorway, there is no reason to believe the bus times would be different. The section from the bus-only junction is projected as 3 mins for 1.3 miles.
This gives a total of 16 mins, plus 4 mins recovery time for a 20 mins schedule.

The current bus service 420 operated by TrustyBus from Harlow to Ongar via Epping Station and North Weald Bassett takes 35 mins and runs every 30 mins, a BRT plan running every 5 - 10 mins as I have described above would have a much better chance of encouraging modal shift from car to bus at the right price.
Over half of the town's population lives within a mile's walk from the route and this is only set to increase in future with the planned high density residential development in Harlow Town Centre.

Indeed - speaking as someone who's been cycling around central London for half a century, I'd say that the introduction of the (now thankfully gone) "bendy-buses" in London, in places where there's no segregated cycle provision (ie pretty much everywhere those buses ran), was one of the 2 or 3 most frightening (for cyclists) deliberate changes made in London in this period.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Indeed - speaking as someone who's been cycling around central London for half a century, I'd say that the introduction of the (now thankfully gone) "bendy-buses" in London, in places where there's no segregated cycle provision (ie pretty much everywhere those buses ran), was one of the 2 or 3 most frightening (for cyclists) deliberate changes made in London in this period.

They were great for the passengers though, I think, if I brought them back, I would run them in segregated bus lanes to improve capacity and keep them away from cyclists.

 

[AlbertBeale]

They were great for the passengers though, I think, if I brought them back, I would run them in segregated bus lanes to improve capacity and keep them away from cyclists.

If you could find bus routes in London which could run the whole way in fully segregated bus lanes which cyclists never have to share ...

 

[AlastairFraser]

If you could find bus routes in London which could run the whole way in fully segregated bus lanes which cyclists never have to share ...

If Cycle Superhighway 2 is extended, you could probably fit bus lanes all the way down Romford/Mile End/Whitechapel Rd to the City, at least. Back to Harlow anyway before the forum gestapo find my OT posts...

 

[simple simon]

The wide verges in Harlow which were designed for when roads need widening sound great - could also be used for light rail / trams.

However that in itself does not mean that the New Towns are great for public transport - at least one of them (Crawley, I think) was designed with parallel main roads which were less than ideal for public transport because to offer a 'turn up and go' frequency for people who live near each road would have required so many buses that it would have been uneconomic.

 

[Alfie1014]

Bi-articulated buses (270 person capacity) at 15 min frequency would transport 3,240 people over the 6am to 9am/ 3pm to 6pm rush hour period each day. Increase the capacity to one every 5 mins and you get 9,720 capacity. The service would take around 20 mins each way with current road timings, each bus can be used 3 times for the 12 journeys each way an hour. That's 4 buses required in each direction, making 8 in service and 4 spares for maintenance margin. The industry consensus seems to be that £200,000 for a single deck bi-articulated EV is the approximate cost - 12 buses using that figure would cost £4.4 million. There is also the prospect of grants from the Office of Low Emission Vehicles to pay for infrastructure - Arriva NW recently got a £4.9 million grant from the OLEV for their fleet of 72 low emission or emission free vehicles.

I'm not sure where you figures come from; whilst a bi-articulated bus (only in use in China and to a lesser extent Holland) can convey up to 270 passengers the majority of these will be standees. The bendy-buses in London had a capacity of 140 but only around 30 were seated, (around 60 seated would be typical in other countries for an artic with room for many fewer standees). I'm not sure how many passengers would be prepared to stand for 20+ mins every morning and evening to get to/from the Central Line and that is if you could get permission and the infrastructure to run 82 ft long buses on UK roads. Have you seen how restricted the station approach is at Epping? Your cost of vehicles is also way off, a EV or hydrogen articulated bus will set you back around £500-600k and a bi-artic closer to £1M per vehicle plus you would need a depot with charging or in the case of hydrogen fuel bespoked fueling arrangements.

 

[306024]

Bi-articulated buses (270 person capacity) at 15 min frequency would transport 3,240 people over the 6am to 9am/ 3pm to 6pm rush hour period each day. Increase the capacity to one every 5 mins and you get 9,720 capacity. The service would take around 20 mins each way with current road timings, each bus can be used 3 times for the 12 journeys each way an hour. That's 4 buses required in each direction, making 8 in service and 4 spares for maintenance margin. The industry consensus seems to be that £200,000 for a single deck bi-articulated EV is the approximate cost - 12 buses using that figure would cost £4.4 million. There is also the prospect of grants from the Office of Low Emission Vehicles to pay for infrastructure - Arriva NW recently got a £4.9 million grant from the OLEV for their fleet of 72 low emission or emission free vehicles.

Also you seem to have allowed 0 minutes for your theoretical 270 persons to board and alight, and no allowance for variable road conditions. That timetable would only work with no road works, and no passengers

 

[simple simon]

I'm not sure where you figures come from; whilst a bi-articulated bus (only in use in China and to a lesser extent Holland) can convey up to 270 passengers the majority of these will be standees.

Ahem, also used extensively in Brazil (including Curitiba which is famed for its BRT with tube style bus stop waiting areas) and Switzerland - where they tend to be trolleybuses. I think that some other South American nations also use them.

 

[Alfie1014]

Ahem, also used extensively in Brazil (including Curitiba which is famed for its BRT with tube style bus stop waiting areas) and Switzerland - where they tend to be trolleybuses. I think that some other South American nations also use them.

Happy to stand corrected on their more widespread use.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Also you seem to have allowed 0 minutes for your theoretical 270 persons to board and alight, and no allowance for variable road conditions. That timetable would only work with no road works, and no passengers

That's what the 4 mins turn around time is for, plus 16 mins is a rather loose timetable.
It's 7 miles of dual carriageway and motorway.

I'm not sure where you figures come from; whilst a bi-articulated bus (only in use in China and to a lesser extent Holland) can convey up to 270 passengers the majority of these will be standees. The bendy-buses in London had a capacity of 140 but only around 30 were seated, (around 60 seated would be typical in other countries for an artic with room for many fewer standees). I'm not sure how many passengers would be prepared to stand for 20+ mins every morning and evening to get to/from the Central Line and that is if you could get permission and the infrastructure to run 82 ft long buses on UK roads. Have you seen how restricted the station approach is at Epping? Your cost of vehicles is also way off, a EV or hydrogen articulated bus will set you back around £500-600k and a bi-artic closer to £1M per vehicle plus you would need a depot with charging or in the case of hydrogen fuel bespoked fueling arrangements.

16 mins or less shouldn't be an issue, given that most tube passengers have to stand for the 47 mins into Central London (Oxford Circus) or 37 mins to Liverpool St.
Maybe long axle double deckers would be better because of the slight issue with the turning circle at Epping tube, the EOR get their vintage double deckers round there with ease.
EV charging infrastructure is a major investment, but many London and London-adjacent bus operators will be making this investment anyway as part of the progressive extension of the ULEZ.

 

[306024]

That's what the 4 mins turn around time is for, plus 16 mins is a rather loose timetable.
It's 7 miles of dual carriageway and motorway.

Sorry thought you said the journey time was 20 minutes in post #104. Where exactly is your proposed high density bus service operating between, and via what route? I’m intrigued how you plan to make it work reliably with those resources.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Sorry thought you said the journey time was 20 minutes in post #104. Where exactly is your proposed high density bus service operating between, and via what route? I’m intrigued how you plan to make it work reliably with those resources.

Harlow Bus Station to Epping for the tube via Second Avenue (A1025) , the A414 from Second Avenue Roundabouts to Hastingwood Interchange on the M11 (J7), 2 miles on the M11 to a bus only junction at Mount Rd to the east of Epping and 1.4 miles from there to Epping tube on a single carriageway road.
The high density of the buses is unfortunately required to run the service during rush hour - some of the vehicles could be used on local services outside of peak at the Harlow end, given I'd reduce the frequency to one every 15 mins outside of peak.
With a fare of £1.50 (same as London and similar to fuel costs for that distance) and 8700+ passengers each way, that's 9.25 million revenue a year.
Revising my estimates to take account of the increased cost of electric buses, I estimate the scheme would cost £12-15 million (minus whatever grant you get from the Office of Low Emission Vehicles, Arriva North West got 4.9 million off them as I mentioned above).
If the revenue is approximately 6 mil a year after costs, that would pay back on the investment after 3 years and make 6 million a year profit a year after then, a very attractive proposition for a prospective operator.
I'm not intending to submit this proposal to Harlow council or anything, it's just a idea showing that BRT is possible when Harlow's population hits 130k as it will by 2050.

 

[306024]

Thanks for explaining your thinking, especially the new bus only junction on the M11. However I’d suggest your timetable and resource planning is at best ’courageous’.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Thanks for explaining your thinking, especially the new bus only junction on the M11. However I’d suggest your timetable and resource planning is at best ’courageous’.

Perhaps, but it shows a BRT would be perfectly possible, it was never intended as a complete business plan - I'll leave that to the professionals.
With Harlow Council getting something like 50mil from Community Infrastructure Levy off the 30k new houses in the Local Plan, 15 million is a reasonable investment in local transport and would be paid back in a few years.
Much more viable than a Tube plan which would evict a much loved heritage railway from part of its network and get constantly blocked by NIMBYS living in Epping and the intervening countryside between Epping and Harlow.