Transport Committee
Submission made
by SANDRA DUTSON, member of NW TAR Core Group, assisted by LILLIAN
BURNS, Convenor.
Please respond to:
Colin Eastman
Coventry City Council
Much Park Street
Coventry
CV1 2PE
Bus Services Across the UK
BRT-UK was formed at the end of 2005
as a forum for the development and promotion of Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT). It is an organisation, which sets out to combine the experience
and expertise of all sectors of the industry including operators,
manufacturers, contractors, Local Authorities, finance and legal
services and Consultants. This the Public and Private sectors
are equally represented. The key objectives of the organisation
are:
- To establish and promote good practice
in the delivery of BRT;
- To seek to establish/collate data
on all aspects of BRT and to disseminate it within the industry;
- To disseminate the benefits of bus
rapid transit to opinion formers, decision makers and stakeholders;
- To engage with Government on key
regulatory, legal and financial aspects governing the implementation
and operation of bus rapid transit;
- To promote and drive improvement
in the quality of integration, infrastructure, vehicles, information
and operations;
- To identify and promote areas of
BRT related research; and
- To provide its members with a range
of benefits aimed at helping the professional in their day to
day work and to co-ordinating and engaging with other organisations
with similar objectives.
What is BRT?
BRT is an intermediate mode lying between
Light Rapid Transit (Modern trams) and the conventional bus priority
scheme, using existing and new buses, technology and design.
The concept of such a system should
include most, or all, of the following elements:
- Extensive segregation from other
traffic to provide priority, speed and reliability;
Crawley - Fastway
- 'Stations' with a distinctive, secure
design probably located at greater intervals rather than conventional
stops
- Real Time Information system;
- A distinctive vehicle (possibly
a single decked articulated rubber wheeled vehicle) which would
have many of the design features of a tram with internal security.
It would probably have multiple access points to speed boarding
and alighting;
- A quality of ride comparable with
tram systems
- Appropriate speedy or off vehicle
ticketing;
- An operating frequency of at least
one service every 10 minutes, probably operating an 18 hour day.
The system may operate with one of the
available guidance systems but this is not an essential feature
in every situation.
It is important to note that there are
currently no systems in the UK which match that specification
although a number of recently introduced schemes have good elements
of the approach. For instance the kerb guided lengths of bus priority
in West Yorkshire, Fastway in Crawley / Gatwick, Edinburgh Fastlink
and Fast track in Dartford, Kent illustrate some of the benefits
of the approach. Several other schemes are in preparation including
schemes in Cambridgeshire, Luton and Leigh (Manchester) where
provisional of DFT LTP funding has been granted, with schemes
currently being developed in Coventry and Plymouth.
However on the Continent, as well as
in Australia and America the concept of BRT as a system is much
further developed and has a long and successful history. BRT routes
can easily carry in excess of 10m passengers per annum - which
is as much as many of the UK Tram systems. Indeed in Curritiba,
in Brazil, one BRT route actually carries 50m passengers per year.
The BRT system in Ottawa is still expanding but is already carrying
28m passengers per annum and the BRT system in Brisbane provides
the backbone of the public transport service in the City.
Curritiba - Brazil
Nearer to home systems which are probably
more suitable for the UK can be found in Amsterdam, Utrecht, Essen,
Eindhoven, as well as in two French cities. Most of the European
examples display most of the key elements as explained in the
initial paragraphs.
Amsterdam
There is evidence worldwide that BRT
systems are attractive and can carry passenger numbers comparable,
or even in excess of many of the current UK tram systems. The
passenger experience on the continent is that such services are
accepted and used in exactly the same way as a tram would be.
If designed correctly BRT systems can
match the priority of the tram, with the flexibility of the bus,
but can be constructed at a fraction of the cost. Whereas a series
of conventional bus priority measures might cost some £1m
per km a BRT scheme is likely to cost £3-£5m a km but
this compares very favourably with the cost of building an LRT
system which could be up to £25m per km. In addition, experience
demonstrates that BRT operations will be picked up by existing
operators as commercially operated services with the operator
providing the vehicle investment; whereas LRT systems have traditionally
had to include the provision of the vehicle as part of the system
cost, and a number are operating at a deficit.
BRT systems are also ideally suited
to early investment within development areas where patronage is
likely to be low in the early years as the development begins
to grow.
This response to the Transport Committee
is not, however, intended to be critical of LRT systems which
have their place within the urban fabric of our large cities but
to illustrate that bus-based systems, if developed pro-actively,
can offer better benefits than we have traditionally seen from
conventional services.
Specific questions from the Transport
Committee:
Unlike Light Rail, BRT can operate within
any regulatory framework and hence we are making no attempt to
address the questions that the Committee are raising on those
issues, but are concentrating on those where the issue of the
BRT concept has something specific to add to the debate.
Are priority measures having a
beneficial effect?
Yes! There is adequate evidence, both
from the UK and elsewhere, that good bus priority schemes can
make a difference. Bus lanes and gates in congested streets can
allow buses to bypass the queues to reach the junctions ahead
of other traffic, such that the bus can be guaranteed to clear
the traffic signals in the first cycle. These arrangements can
often be delivered at no loss of capacity for other traffic. With
the recent range of intelligent transport systems and traffic
signals much the same approach can be adopted, by holding traffic
queues further upstream and feeding the bus into gaps in the traffic.
On-vehicle positioning systems can ensure that traffic signals
respond to the approach of a bus to provide additional 'green'
time at the lights.
Research of the benefits of Bus SCOOT
which is a traffic signalling scheduling system designed to recognise
the approaching bus have been summarised in a Traffic Advisory
Leaflet (DETR, 2001). "Modelling confirmed by on-street
surveys, indicates Bus SCOOT can reduce travel times by 2 to 4
minutes on a 10 Kilometre bus route, with the variability of travel
time improved by up to 16%. Time savings of 1 to 10 seconds per
junction (an average of 4 seconds), and travel time variability
improvements of 0 to 20% (with an average of 12%) were achieved".
Further specific work was undertaken
in Cardiff as part of the preparations for the Rugby World Cup
in 2001, which produced 15% travel time savings for the bus in
the peak direction at peak times.
Estimates of average time savings are
generally taken as some 6 seconds per set of signals. Whilst this
does not sound much it does add up over the course of a complete
route, but more importantly the systems can enhance reliability
and regularity.
The West Midlands have adopted the concept
of Bus Showcase since the late 1990's. This is a concept of providing
a coordinated package of bus priority measures linked to signal
priority, upgraded bus stops, real time information, new low floor
vehicles, and better enforcement of parking. Route patronage levels
have increased on all such treated routes, with increases averaging
15%, with some well in excess of that.
BRT in East Leeds, which has provided
extensive segregated kerb guidance, has seen a doubling of patronage
in less than 4 years.
Some of the most effective priority
schemes are those in Town and City Centres that allow buses into
the central areas where other vehicles are prohibited or have
restricted access. This increased accessibility reduces overall
bus based travel times particularly when car parking is located
on the fringe of the central areas. The connectivity between bus
stops and rail stations tends to be one area where bus priority
provides major advantages over the car.
If there is clear evidence that
bus priority schemes can be effective, why are they not being
introduced in greater numbers?
There seems to be a reluctance amongst
both Officers and Members of Local Authorities to introduce such
schemes. This seems to arise in part from the view that such schemes
will be detrimental to the desires of the car driver and a recognition
that car drivers tend to be the majority of travellers, who therefore
have more votes. The difference in London, where very extensive
bus priority measures have been introduced, is that a much greater
percentage of the population are regular public transport users
and hence there is more self-interest in promoting priority measures.
To counter such a stance it is important to promote the fact that
much can be done to provide additional bus priority and enhance
the service, which does not disadvantage other road users.
A key factor is whether promoters are
prepared to take land, and sometimes purchase and demolish buildings,
outside of the highway boundary for the development of a bus priority
system. The general view is that such an approach would not be
acceptable. However taking such land for a tram system is likely
to be more acceptable. We believe that promoting the elements
of BRT will give Political Members more justification for providing
the priority measures that are required.
The statutory processes also affect
the ability to deliver Bus Rapid Transit schemes. Tramway systems
are delivered through a Transport and Works Order, which considers
the whole scheme, both on and off highway. The scheme is therefore
considered in its entirety at a Public Inquiry with the decision
on the Order made by the Secretary of State. Bus priority measures,
even where associated with a guided busway promoted through a
Transport and Works Order, are delivered through Traffic Regulation
Orders section by section, with each section considered on its
own merit and decisions taken by local politicians. As, unlike
a tramway, continuity of measures are not absolutely essential,
local issues, such as on-street parking, can take precedence over
the more strategic need for bus priority measures. The ability
to consider an entire Bus Rapid Transit scheme through a single
process and public inquiry would allow a strategic overview to
be taken, while still allowing local views to be considered.
What is the future for the bus?
There is no doubt that there has to
be a future for the bus and it is becoming increasingly important
in policy terms that the bus is able to take a greater percentage
of the travel demand market. Improved rail and LRT services are
important contributors to the overall travel pattern, but the
bus currently takes by far the largest proportion of urban non-car
travel and it will have to.
The regeneration of our city centres
and the need to provide alternatives to the car to reduce the
pressure on climate change needs the bus to succeed. This requires
a major change in attitude by scheme promoters and operators.
We need to move away from the old image of the bus and the image
that only 'failed' people's use of them. We need to move from
the bus being the mode of last resort to the mode of first choice.
BRT can be part of that image change.
However to be able to make such a change we need good UK examples.
In the US the Government has agreed to fund 20 pilot schemes to
demonstrate the benefits of the approach. The UK Government could
follow that lead.
The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (CGB)
is expected to begin construction later this year. The CGB is
an intra-urban scheme that is being built under the Transport
and Works Act and the Order includes the powers to enter into
Quality Partnerships and control frequency and timetables. This
is however only possible because of the nature of the TWA process.
Cambridgeshire propose to allow any operator that is prepared
to meet their quality criteria and enter into a quality partnership
to operate on the CGB, and is currently negotiating with a number
of operators. However whilst there is every expectation that operators
are prepared to operate the services there is no certainty. This
is where there are big differences from LRT schemes, where operator
franchises are tendered at the time of the civils works. For BRT,
bus-based, schemes that approach is ruled out due to anti-competitiveness
legislation.
Promoters of schemes do work in partnership
with the operating sector through the crucial development phase
of these projects to focus on the operating viability of the service
pattern, and through the involvement of operating experience,
ensure the most effective design. The operating sector has shown
willingness, as mentioned above, to invest in new rolling stock
and make formal partnership commitments in support of the development
of projects. This commitment should give the Government confidence
to provide development and funding support to Authorities, however
there is still no guarantee that operators would actually operate
the facility on completion. This creates a large risk.
BRT schemes would normally need to be
introduced utilising 'quality partnership' approaches, in order
to specify quality thresholds, but such partnerships are likely
to have to include other services in the same corridor, particularly
where a BRT service was to share space or stops with other services.
This adds a complexity where the current legislation is not designed
to respond to this type of system.
Summary
Bus Rapid Transit can provide the image
and travel experience that will provide a real alternative to
the comfort and conveyance of the private car. However the concept
is not well understood in the UK, despite its history of success
in other areas of the world. The UK has only just begun to benefit
from some of that experience but there is a very long way to go.
A commitment by Government to UK demonstration projects would
be of benefit to the whole industry.
There cannot be an issue of whether
the bus can be made to succeed; there must be an attitude that
there is no other course of action. Bus priority measures are
therefore a prerequisite of the regeneration of our inner urban
areas and the generation of greater national production.
Finally, it should be remembered that
bus travel is and will continue to remain the dominant public
transport mode in the UK and it is therefore essential that the
mode is encouraged to develop to its full potential and not be
dismissed as a poor relation to rail and LRT systems.
| 
