When can a bus become a tram?

[telstarbox]

The Maidstone - Medway Towns bus 101 runs every 12 minutes, I believe with high spec "Sapphire" double deckers, and every 20 minutes on Sundays. They're both big places and Medway sprawls quite far south from its town centres.

The A229 road between them is busy and there is a rail connection (to Strood) but the bus is more direct.

Apart from the challenge of getting over the North Downs, is that the scale of reliable demand which could support a light rail or tram system ?

 

[Busaholic]

The Maidstone - Medway Towns bus 101 runs every 12 minutes, I believe with high spec "Sapphire" double deckers, and every 20 minutes on Sundays. They're both big places and Medway sprawls quite far south from its town centres.

The A229 road between them is busy and there is a rail connection (to Strood) but the bus is more direct.

Apart from the challenge of getting over the North Downs, is that the scale of reliable demand which could support a light rail or tram system ?

Another possibility would be modern trolleybuses, almost certainly articulated, which could cope well with those inclines, for a fraction of the cost.

 

[miklcct]

The Maidstone - Medway Towns bus 101 runs every 12 minutes, I believe with high spec "Sapphire" double deckers, and every 20 minutes on Sundays. They're both big places and Medway sprawls quite far south from its town centres.

The A229 road between them is busy and there is a rail connection (to Strood) but the bus is more direct.

Apart from the challenge of getting over the North Downs, is that the scale of reliable demand which could support a light rail or tram system ?

No.

Only when the bus route in question are standing full even if it runs every 4 minutes it can support a tram system.

Let's assume that a double-decker bus can carry 125 passengers, and a light rail vehicle can carry 200 passengers. If we replace a bus route running every 12 minutes with a light rail route, the light rail route will become running every 20 minutes to achieve the same loading if a single vehicle is used. This is clearly unattractive.

If a light rail route is running every 5 minutes with a couple set of 2 vehicles, i.e. 80 passengers per minute, it will translate to about a bus departing every 1 and a half minutes.

 

[telstarbox]

It's a fair point although I would counter that a tram (or trolleybus) could achieve faster journey times and thus take more of the car market - potentially enough for a 15 minute frequency which means 7.5 minute average wait.

20 minutes might be unattractive but 15 minutes is probably good enough outside London e.g. Merseyrail runs at 15 ninute frequencies.

 

[miklcct]

It's a fair point although I would counter that a tram (or trolleybus) could achieve faster journey times and thus take more of the car market - potentially enough for a 15 minute frequency which means 7.5 minute average wait.

20 minutes might be unattractive but 15 minutes is probably good enough outside London e.g. Merseyrail runs at 15 ninute frequencies.

A local service at a 15-minute headway is unattractive. It's still hardly turn-up-and-go. It may be attractive if the light rail system is a regional network which runs at 70 km/h between neighbouring towns.

However, light rail are much more costly than bus so I can only justify it if the corridor is served by well-used buses every 4 minutes or less, otherwise improving bus provision should be a start.

 

[GusB]

A local service at a 15-minute headway is unattractive. It's still hardly turn-up-and-go. It may be attractive if the light rail system is a regional network which runs at 70 km/h between neighbouring towns.

However, light rail are much more costly than bus so I can only justify it if the corridor is served by well-used buses every 4 minutes or less, otherwise improving bus provision should be a start.

Every fifteen minutes is turn-up-and-go, provided that it's on time. I seriously hope you never visit my part of the world; your head would explode when you find out it's only one bus every hour!

Do you actually have any knowledge of the area that's being discussed here, or are you just plucking figures out of thin air?

 

[miklcct]

Every fifteen minutes is turn-up-and-go, provided that it's on time. I seriously hope you never visit my part of the world; your head would explode when you find out it's only one bus every hour!

Do you actually have any knowledge of the area that's being discussed here, or are you just plucking figures out of thin air?

Studies have found out that the point of passengers switching from random arrival to reading timetable is somewhere around 10 minutes headway. Therefore according to these results 15-minute headway is not turn up and go, as most passengers will consult a timetable at such frequency.

 

[philthetube]

No.

Only when the bus route in question are standing full even if it runs every 4 minutes it can support a tram system.

Let's assume that a double-decker bus can carry 125 passengers, and a light rail vehicle can carry 200 passengers. If we replace a bus route running every 12 minutes with a light rail route, the light rail route will become running every 20 minutes to achieve the same loading if a single vehicle is used. This is clearly unattractive.

If a light rail route is running every 5 minutes with a couple set of 2 vehicles, i.e. 80 passengers per minute, it will translate to about a bus departing every 1 and a half minutes.

Are there such beasts?

 

[The exile]

Studies have found out that the point of passengers switching from random arrival to reading timetable is somewhere around 10 minutes headway. Therefore according to these results 15-minute headway is not turn up and go, as most passengers will consult a timetable at such frequency.

What were the lengths of journey time being looked at in the study? While absolute interval time is important (no-one would consider a 60 minute interval “turn up and go”), in the grey area (which I would personally put at roughly 12 - 25 minutes) the length of the interval relative to the journey time also comes into play. This routing is inter-urban, so can probably stretch the “turn up and go” interval a bit. That said, 1 bus load every 12 minutes is hardly going to make the case on its own for expensive extra infrastructure.

 

[GusB]

Studies have found out that the point of passengers switching from random arrival to reading timetable is somewhere around 10 minutes headway. Therefore according to these results 15-minute headway is not turn up and go, as most passengers will consult a timetable at such frequency.

Source, please.

So what if they consult a timetable? 15 minutes is not a long time to wait for a bus, especially in a provincial town. You seriously need to adjust your expectations.

 

[zwk500]

Apart from the challenge of getting over the North Downs, is that the scale of reliable demand which could support a light rail or tram system ?

The problem is that because of the engineering challenges present in getting a route over the north downs, the demand required is higher than it would be in an easier location to cover the inflated capital costs.

If you were doing a light rail in Kent, I'd focus on the Gravesend-Strood-Medway Towns axis, with a possible tram-train to Sittingbourne. Then upgrade the Maidstone-Strood-Gravesend Line so that public transport is a reasonable alternative, even if it's not completely optimal.

 

[miklcct]

Source, please.

So what if they consult a timetable? 15 minutes is not a long time to wait for a bus, especially in a provincial town. You seriously need to adjust your expectations.

This is one of many previous studies made on this subject.

Most models assume that 5-12 minutes is the transition between random and timetable-based arrival, but they found out that even at 5-minute interval, the arrival to the station still isn't totally random.

https://www.andynash.com/nash-publications/Luethi2007-pax-arrivals-TRB-paper.pdf

The following is my own opinion:

15 minutes is a long wait for a local route (for example, an estate-to-market route which is only 2-3 km long), which is unattractive for short distance passengers.

In mainland China, people complain if their local route don't come in about 10 minutes.

In Hong Kong, reducing frequencies beyond 15 minutes in the urban area is deemed to be an action which the bus company is giving up on the route as people will less likely to wait for such routes and use alternatives instead.

In London, there are very few routes which run at less than every 15-minute daytime frequency.

All the above evidences, and the various studies quoted above, indicate that 15 minutes headway is not a truly turn up and go operation. If transfers are needed between two different lines both above 15 minutes, but different headway, it will be very unattractive. Examples can be found in Hong Kong where some interchanges have little use by passengers because all the frequencies of passing routes are 15 or 20 minutes, making changing buses unattractive even if changing means more direct, while at other interchanges where there are multiple routes combined to serve a place making a turn up and go frequency, a lot of people will rather get on the first bus to the interchange and transfer there if the direct route isn't a turn up and go frequency.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No.

Only when the bus route in question are standing full even if it runs every 4 minutes it can support a tram system.

Let's assume that a double-decker bus can carry 125 passengers, and a light rail vehicle can carry 200 passengers. If we replace a bus route running every 12 minutes with a light rail route, the light rail route will become running every 20 minutes to achieve the same loading if a single vehicle is used. This is clearly unattractive.

If a light rail route is running every 5 minutes with a couple set of 2 vehicles, i.e. 80 passengers per minute, it will translate to about a bus departing every 1 and a half minutes.

I suggest you look up "induced demand". Your approach has things backwards I'm afraid. If you can only convert to tram once you've maxed out the corridor with buses, your tram will cost way more as you'll need loads of tram vehicles right from the start rather than increasing your fleet size as demand increases. Also there's way more people to inconvenience while you convert, and no room for growth because you've already hit the ceiling for demand.

 

[The exile]

Also there's way more people to inconvenience while you convert, and no room for growth because you've already hit the ceiling for demand.

That assumes a) that the tram will follow exactly the same route as the bus (ie construction disruption is direct) and b) that demand has maxed out, rather than practical supply (which given the “tram effect” is unlikely)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That assumes a) that the tram will follow exactly the same route as the bus (ie construction disruption is direct) and b) that demand has maxed out, rather than practical supply (which given the “tram effect” is unlikely)

Not sure how that's relevant to the point I was replying to, which seemed to assume a near-identical route.

 

[duncombec]

The Maidstone - Medway Towns bus 101 runs every 12 minutes, I believe with high spec "Sapphire" double deckers, and every 20 minutes on Sundays. They're both big places and Medway sprawls quite far south from its town centres.

The A229 road between them is busy and there is a rail connection (to Strood) but the bus is more direct.

Apart from the challenge of getting over the North Downs, is that the scale of reliable demand which could support a light rail or tram system ?

Ex Sapphire deckers. The A229 is busy, but once you leave the southern Medway suburbs there is almost zero housing until you reach Ringlestone, on the outskirts of Maidstone, which is itsself only served the 101 on the main road (it does not enter the estate proper). Added to which there are rolling hills between the two conurbations, and the roads are heavily used by HGVs. I'm not sure how you'd safely install any sort of light rail or Trolleybus system in the space available - you'd also have to remodel a major motorway junction. (Did you use Streetview?)

Another possibility would be modern trolleybuses, almost certainly articulated, which could cope well with those inclines, for a fraction of the cost.

See above - no space!

Only when the bus route in question are standing full even if it runs every 4 minutes it can support a tram system.

This appears to have been made up.

Let's assume that a double-decker bus can carry 125 passengers, and a light rail vehicle can carry 200 passengers. If we replace a bus route running every 12 minutes with a light rail route, the light rail route will become running every 20 minutes to achieve the same loading if a single vehicle is used. This is clearly unattractive.

No such double deckers exist in the UK - think more like 90. This information is clearly displayed by law on all UK buses!

If a light rail route is running every 5 minutes with a couple set of 2 vehicles, i.e. 80 passengers per minute, it will translate to about a bus departing every 1 and a half minutes.

There is no guarantee that trams will run in double traction. (Is Manchester Metrolink the only one to do this regularly?)

A local service at a 15-minute headway is unattractive. It's still hardly turn-up-and-go. It may be attractive if the light rail system is a regional network which runs at 70 km/h between neighbouring towns.

Much of the UK would consider a 15 minute service perfectly acceptable. Indeed, for many years the service in question ran at that frequency, or less, and it was still one of the most popular routes in the area!

The problem is that because of the engineering challenges present in getting a route over the north downs, the demand required is higher than it would be in an easier location to cover the inflated capital costs.

If you were doing a light rail in Kent, I'd focus on the Gravesend-Strood-Medway Towns axis, with a possible tram-train to Sittingbourne. Then upgrade the Maidstone-Strood-Gravesend Line so that public transport is a reasonable alternative, even if it's not completely optimal.

Some years ago, when the public transport sector was flavour of the month, there were plans (or at least "plans") to convert the Medway Valley Line to light rail, and extend it at both ends into the town centres of both the Medway Towns and Maidstone. Needless to say, cost was an issue.
Gravesend is a much lesser used service (because of the parallel train every 15 minutes), whilst bus services to Sittingbourne are every hour (because of the paralell 3 trains per hour). I'm not sure what converting that axis to light rail would really bring much benefit.

 

[miklcct]

Much of the UK would consider a 15 minute service perfectly acceptable. Indeed, for many years the service in question ran at that frequency, or less, and it was still one of the most popular routes in the area!

At least it is not acceptable in most places where public transport usage is high, such as London or the other countries I have mentioned.

No such double deckers exist in the UK - think more like 90. This information is clearly displayed by law on all UK buses!

My number is a typical figure for a 3-axle 12 m double decker bus, not commonly seen in the UK but very common in Hong Kong and Singapore where bus usage is high.

This appears to have been made up.

This is from my experience in the past living in a town where a light rail route was bustituted temporarily due to construction works, which became a permanent bus route due to the lack of light rail vehicles afterwards. The route was the poorest route in the network with headways about 11-12 minutes but, after bustitution, buses were packed full even running every 4 minutes or less in peak hours, with extra short workings needed to relieve the crowds, so there is a voice in the community hoping that it would be converted back to light rail.

 

[The exile]

Not sure how that's relevant to the point I was replying to, which seemed to assume a near-identical route.

Without local knowledge, an inter-urban tramway can serve a route without running on road like urban tramways have to. Ok - it’ll still need to cross roads, but that’s not half as disruptive during construction.

 

[zwk500]

Some years ago, when the public transport sector was flavour of the month, there were plans (or at least "plans") to convert the Medway Valley Line to light rail, and extend it at both ends into the town centres of both the Medway Towns and Maidstone. Needless to say, cost was an issue.
Gravesend is a much lesser used service (because of the parallel train every 15 minutes), whilst bus services to Sittingbourne are every hour (because of the paralell 3 trains per hour). I'm not sure what converting that axis to light rail would really bring much benefit.

Not convert the railway, parallel the railway (with possible closure of a couple of stations to improve journey times). It's all pie-in-the-sky anyway, nobody's going to build a tram in North kent anytime soon.

 

[telstarbox]

All good points!

 

[duncombec]

At least it is not acceptable in most places where public transport usage is high, such as London or the other countries I have mentioned.

Evidence, or just personal preference? Parts of London also have bus services every 15 minutes, and frequency reductions will be seen through. I doubt public transport will drop that much more than it already has. Don't confuse the need (because driving a car into central London in the peaks is, or was, expensive and slow) with desire.

Rather than always referring back to some of the largest cities in the world as a catch-all for everywhere, you'd do well to consider the environments in the UK - perhaps with the judicious use of Streetview! - and the expectations. The Medway Towns are allegedly the largest urban conurbation in the south east outside of London - yet there are vast swathes of house-less green before you reach any of the next towns (Gravesend, Maidstone, Sittingbourne).

My number is a typical figure for a 3-axle 12 m double decker bus, not commonly seen in the UK but very common in Hong Kong and Singapore where bus usage is high.

This is a UK bus route, so your figures would desirably be based on UK vehicles for them to have any use to your argument. The latest Enviro 400 MMC's in my area have a total axle-based capacity of 103, but rather like that for single deckers, I think you'd struggle to find any bus that could fit 30 standing passengers on the lower deck, so the actual carrying capacity will be much closer to 90 (and thus tram convertability even lower!)

This is from my experience in the past living in a town where a light rail route was bustituted temporarily due to construction works, which became a permanent bus route due to the lack of light rail vehicles afterwards. The route was the poorest route in the network with headways about 11-12 minutes but, after bustitution, buses were packed full even running every 4 minutes or less in peak hours, with extra short workings needed to relieve the crowds, so there is a voice in the community hoping that it would be converted back to light rail.

You posited that only a "bus route running every 4 minutes can support a tram system", yet the detail appears to be little more than based on a single experience and not with any financial considerations, and certainly not on a bus>tram conversion. Few if any of the existing UK tram systems have replaced buses running every 4 minutes. Which city was this, by the way? I presume in Europe or Asia, and thus irrelevant to the UK?

Not convert the railway, parallel the railway (with possible closure of a couple of stations to improve journey times). It's all pie-in-the-sky anyway, nobody's going to build a tram in North kent anytime soon.

Exactly!!

 

[Lockwood]

your head would explode when you find out it's only one bus every hour!

You get buses that frequently?!