Memorandum by FirstGroup Plc (LR 66)
THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF QUALITY BUS AND
LIGHT RAIL
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 There has been much debate and argument
as to the relative value of introducing quality bus corridors
or light rail systems in various British cities and towns.
1.2 This paper has been written from the
perspective of First's experience as an integrated transport operator
and using our knowledge of passenger desires and concerns.
1.3 The arguments are frequently emotive
as much as realistic, yet the practical experience of those schemes
thus far introduced suggests that the comparative merits can be
summarised quite easily.
1.4 This is not a case of quality bus or
Light Rail—both modes have their places and complement each
other.
1.5 However it is likely that the circumstances
in which light rail schemes can be justified in social cost-benefit
terms are quite limited.
1.6 Greater development of quality bus networks
may offer wider, faster benefits. In contrast, even the best performing
light rail systems may provide an upgrade to a tiny part of the
overall network at such high cost that wider improvements are
crowded out by lack of funds.
1.7 Costs of building light rail schemes
vary, but typical costs of building new street running systems
are up to £10 million per track kilometre. By way of contrast,
First has experience of two extensive bus priority corridor schemes,
which include extensive sections of segregated guideway, in Leeds
and Bradford. The entire York Road scheme in Leeds was built for
£10 million, and the Manchester Road Scheme in Bradford built
for £7 million.
2. MERITS OF
LIGHT RAIL
2.1 Light rail is constrained as to its
routeing by the presence of fixed infrastructure (rails and, usually
but not necessarily, overhead wires) and thus has a relatively
restricted potential for application.
2.2 It is suitable for corridors where very
high capacities are required (usually where vehicle "trains"
of greater than around 30 metres in length are desired).
2.3 This usually occurs where traffic origins
and objectives are concentrated either in discrete pockets along
the line of route or are distributed in "ribbon" form
along that line of route.
2.4 It is particularly suited for corridors
where existing heavy rail lines are excessively expensive to operate
and/or where the rail infrastructure concerned is in poor condition
and yet the basic track bed and tracks themselves may be adapted
to light rail use.
2.5 Light rail may also allow heavy rail
services to be released from the railway fence line to directly
serve the shops, offices and social facilities of city centres.
2.6 Light rail lines are likely to be successful
where they offer very big improvements in relative journey time
compared to making the same journey by car or by buses running
on dedicated roadways. This seems to be a common feature in all
light rail services that have shown worthwhile passenger increases
(eg Altrincham-Manchester-Bury, Croydon-Wimbledon and Bank-Canary
Wharf-Lewisham). In contrast, light rail routes that simply use
rail vehicles to provide a bus type service have not performed
well in cost benefit terms (eg Manchester-Eccles and Midland Metro).
2.7 As the route structure is relatively
tightly constrained, the services operated can avoid delays and
disruption away from the specific lines of route.
2.8 Much of the journey time benefits of
light rail derive from wider stop spacing, fewer stops and dedicated
tracks—these benefits can often be applied to bus networks
and are not a feature of light rail per se.
3. MERITS OF
QUALITY BUS
3.1 Wherever and whenever buses can be removed
from unpredictable traffic congestion they will perform reliably,
punctually and with faster absolute and relative journey times.
3.2 Journey time and reliability relative
to making the same trips by car is key to mode shift.
3.3 Wherever and whenever such segregation
can be provided for light rail, it can similarly be provided for
quality bus.
3.4 Passengers prefer "seamless"
journeys with the absolute minimum of interchanging—with
buses being road-based they can act as their own through "feeder"
and "distributor" services to a bus-based line-haul
operation. However, feeder buses are generally a very poor second-best
to through services, even with elaborate arrangements for through
ticketing, interchange and information. Our experience is that
such services tend to be poorly used and are often resented by
passengers.
3.5 A busway has the advantage that a greater
variety of through services can be provided to customers without
interchange penalties.
3.6 A Quality Bus route does not require
continuous special infrastructure, but only needs special provision
where either there is a possibility or probability of traffic
congestion (thereby bringing unreliability) or where a significant
reduction in journey time can be achieved by not operating on-highway
ie a track is only provided where it gives time and reliability
advantages to customers.
3.7 By contrast, light rail requires a "track"
for every inch of route.
3.8 Because of the "fragmented"
nature of Quality Bus infrastructure, such measures can be implemented
incrementally (solving the worst problems first and others later),
with obvious funding benefits and "quick wins" for passengers.
3.9 Where a problem is "too difficult"
to solve at a particular time, the necessary action can be deferred
for a period, allowing the benefits of other parts of a scheme
to be enjoyed by passengers.
3.10 As further problems develop (perhaps
as a result of rising traffic congestion or new developments),
further bus-based infrastructure measures can be introduced. Therefore,
resources are not wasted solving potential "problems"
long before they occur.
3.11 These features mean that infrastructure
capital costs for any given corridor are likely to be significantly
lower than if continuous infrastructure were required.
3.12 The vehicles are based on bus technology,
itself in turn derived from goods vehicle development. Hence,
technological and environmental development is continuous, extensive
and at low relative cost per bus, because of it being spread over
such a large world-wide vehicle market.
3.13 Bus-based capital costs are therefore
much lower.
3.14 Although there are many suppliers of
buses around the world to a variety of designs and configurations,
there is considerable conformity to basic dimensions of widths,
lengths, floor heights, door dimensions and performance.
3.15 This in turn ensures that similar vehicles
can be operated in a wide range of towns and cities, avoiding
any unique-to-each-city design developments, with the associated
lack of transferability.
3.16 Several proprietary bus-based guidance
systems are available; these allow for continuous and/or discrete
guidance for particular corridors.
3.17 Such guidance allows for close and
level boarding through all doors at bus stops, making it easy
for encumbered and disabled passengers to board and alight without
assistance.
3.18 This also ensures that multi-door simultaneous
boarding and alighting can take place at stops.
3.19 The high levels of indirect development
funding through the goods vehicle market ensure that continuing
changes in emission standards are applied to buses within a very
short timescale.
3.20 A number of suppliers worldwide have
developed "hybrid" propulsion systems for buses (again
often based on goods vehicle technological development). These
not only reduce emissions but can also allow completely zero-emission
bus operation in environmentally sensitive areas such as historic
or congested city centres.
3.21 Such hybrid power trains also eliminate
the perceived vibration and jerking experienced in buses with
"conventional" power trains. Several of these buses
are now in service in Britain.
3.22 Trolleybus technology has also developed
significantly since the mode went out of use in Britain in the
1970s. Several mainstream suppliers can provide such vehicles,
which no longer require continuous infrastructure.
3.23 It is frequently claimed that, no matter
how high the quality, passengers will not be attracted to Quality
Bus schemes. However, experience with those schemes that have
been implemented with significant amounts of infrastructure has
shown patronage growth levels as high or higher than are predicted
for rail-based systems.
3.24 Since light rail schemes are generally
several orders of magnitude more expensive than high quality bus
projects, they have to deliver much higher levels of mode shift
simply to deliver the same relative performance.
3.25 Significantly higher levels of investment
by the Private Sector—providing better value for that money—are
likely for bus-based systems as the risk is much lower in view
of the potential transferability of such buses elsewhere and the
fact that provided infrastructure will generally be unlikely to
become redundant.
3.26 Because such bus-based systems will
use vehicle designs based on mainstream buses, continuous evolution
is practicable. Thus the newest and most passenger and environmentally
friendly buses can be introduced to such quality bus services
on a regular basis, with the earlier vehicles cascaded to continuing
use on other, less mainstream services.
3.27 With road-based vehicles, the route
structure can be adapted on a continuous basis to cater for changes
in housing, retail, employment, sporting and social centres on
or adjacent to the existing routes. Buses can therefore be more
flexible in meeting passenger needs.
3.28 As bus-based infrastructure will generally
be concentrated on "core" sections of the route network,
evolution of the route network is unlikely to make any sections
of such infrastructure redundant.
3.29 This flexibility of route structure
ensures that it can be developed to serve continuing changes in
areas of social exclusion.
3.30 Bus systems also provide flexible opportunities
for competition, because they can accommodate multiple operators
more easily than light rail. A good example of this is the elite
corridor in East Leeds, which is served by both First and Arriva.
3.30 Being based on rubber tyres (also in
continuous development), bus-based transit can climb and descend
steep gradients and have a very high braking ability, thereby
reducing infrastructure capital costs and increasing safety.
3.31 Bus design and operation is already
strongly regulated through Construction & Use Regulations,
the annual inspections carried out by the DfT Vehicles Inspectorate
and the latter's "spot check" procedures.
3.32 Bus driver competency is strongly protected
through the Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) licensing system,
monitored by VOSA and the Traffic Commissioners under UK and EU
regulations.
3.33 Bus maintenance and repair costs are
comparatively low, as most mechanical components are from "mainstream"
suppliers.
3.34 Garaging facilities for buses can be
provided anywhere suitable on or off the line of route, without
any necessity for dedicated connecting infrastructure.
3.35 Any infrastructure provided for Quality
Bus services can also be used, with suitable performance safeguards,
by ordinary bus services, thereby maximising the use (and thus
value) of any provided infrastructure.
3.36 Being road-based, any Quality Bus system
can divert vehicles around "incidents" of whatever kind,
be they roadworks, bomb threats, building works etc, albeit with
a slight reduction in performance quality.
3.37 Bus designs are flexible enough to
permit differing levels of driver involvement in ticketing, through
from everyone transacting with the driver as they board to no
driver involvement whatsoever.
ABOUT FIRSTGROUP
PLC
FirstGroup plc is the UK's largest surface public
transport operator and the largest bus operator, running more
than one in five of all local bus services and carrying over 2.8
million passengers every day. 75% of our operations are in urban
areas where the bus is perhaps the most effective means of tackling
traffic congestion. We are working in partnership with local authorities
and other stakeholders to provide the best possible service for
our passengers.
First operates the highly successful Croydon
Tramlink on behalf of Transport for London. The system now carries
some 20 million passengers per annum. We are one of the shortlisted
bidders to design, build, operate, maintain and part finance the
Leeds Supertram scheme as part of the Momentis consortium. We
have also pre-qualified, with our partner Carillion, for the new
Docklands Light Railway franchise.
We are one of the largest rail companies in
the UK and operate passenger and freight rail services, including
First Great Western, TransPennine Express, First Great Western
Link, First ScotRail, Hull Trains and GBRailfreight.
David Leeder
Managing Director UK Bus
February 2005
| 
