TRANSPORT | Bus Rapid Transit / Cross City Bus Routes

[nerd]

Originally Posted by staticmeltdown

I've been wondering how, or whether, this will improve the Withington/Fallowfield to Uni journey times. I think Christies to All Saints can often be more like 30min+ with traffic at the moment, and the majority of waiting appears to be the narrowner roads in Rusholme /going into Rusholme and south of Rusholme, rather than the wider roads north of Rusholme.

I guess banning cars from the Uni area (if this is still the idea) will discourage traffic from entering Rusholme, but I also assume much of the existing traffic is local traffic - it's the cars pulling in and out of side streets that really slow the buses down..

good point.

The TIF documents suggest that journey times should be 20% less, once the new arrangments are in place. So, if the existing journey takes 20 minutes, the new one should take 16. Part of this may be achieved by lmiting the number of stops (though that only works if the stopping buses pull in to allow the express buses through); partly it may be pre-ticketting, with consequentially quicker boarding and leaving.

But improved bus priority at junctions will also be needed. There is already a bus priority signalling arrangement through the Curry Mile - but I suspect a lot of drivers pay no attention to it. Th really tricky bit is possibly the Wilbraham Road junction.

[staticmeltdown]

Originally Posted by nerd

good point.

The TIF documents suggest that journey times should be 20% less, once the new arrangments are in place. So, if the existing journey takes 20 minutes, the new one should take 16. Part of this may be achieved by lmiting the number of stops (though that only works if the stopping buses pull in to allow the express buses through); partly it may be pre-ticketting, with consequentially quicker boarding and leaving.

But improved bus priority at junctions will also be needed. There is already a bus priority signalling arrangement through the Curry Mile - but I suspect a lot of drivers pay no attention to it. Th really tricky bit is possibly the Wilbraham Road junction.

It'd certainly be nice to have off-bus ticketing, people paying when boarding can be immensely frustrating when in a hurry.

In terms of bus priority I sometimes wonder why they don't just have 'give way' signs rather than the 'bus gate' traffic lights they have at the moment - often buses miss the lights and have to wait for ages whilst cars sail through, whereas 'give way' signs and road markings would be much more responsive to a bus actually being there, benefitting buses and cars.

The situation at the new Fallowfield stop seems particualrly silly to be - buses used to have no problem just pulling out into traffic, and now they have to wait for their own set of lights to tell them that they can go.

[spoonsbeatfish]

Doesn't the bus also have a second set of doors in the middle? That should help speed unloading and loading.

One issue that does occur to me though, is the level of students not bothering to pay, claiming ignorance etc. I guess it would have the occasional inspectors like with Metrolink but they wouldn't be that frequent in comparison to the number of journeys.

[link_road_17/7]

Stagecoach introduced the X57 limited stop service, to speed up the previous 157 (Bullocks) service. Whilst timings have reduced, it is still held up by too many traffic lights. I think the solution is to introduce proper bus infrastructure, with dedicated lanes through junctions, not stretches of lane, here, there and everywhere, which start/end before/after traffic lights.

Bendi-buses (Citaros, IIRC) in London have three sets of doors, with 'buy before you board' ticket purchase. Low-floor, step-free, wide-doors make for speedy boarding.

Personally, I'd like to see similar to what was proposed back in 1945, where Oxford Road was made car-free, priority given over to pedestrians, cyclists and PT. Vehicular traffic diverted to Upper Brook St/Kingsway, which is why those roads were widened/constructed.

I also reckon the whole student bus market 'exists' because cycling facilities, despite a segregated facility along Oxford Road, are so poor. If facilities were dramatically improved in the city centre, I reckon this would ease pressure on the buses.

[Architecty]

I said this on the Coop thread the other day, applies more here really:

Originally Posted by Architecty

On a slight aside, it has been interesting with the closure of Oxford street and part of Whitworth Street the last couple of weeks that traffic in the city centre (from my perspective on the southern side anyway) has been moving much easier (apart from the obvious queue of buses in Whitworth street) to the extent that driving into town has actually been noticeably quicker. Perhaps some selective road closures and reorganisations of one way systems and the like, such as this section of Miller Street could have a positive effect on traffic in town generally.

I'm sure the powers that be will be watching closely at the effects of this closure, as it basically mirrors the effects of a bus/BRT only route along Oxford Street (and access into Chorlton Street if that ever were to come to fruition). Again it serves to flag that the biggest cause of congestion along these bus routes is currently the buses themselves; the majority of passengers are off by the Palace, and then the buses queue up mainly empty along Whitworth street to get into Piccadilly via Sackville Street. Will be interesting to see the effects of the different road closure arrangements are the works progress.

Another aside to this, has been that Sackville Street has been made totally one way temporarily passing through the UMIST campus, providing two lanes for traffic coming off the Mancunian Way and Charles St (following the Oxford Rd/St diversion). The result is much improved traffic flow, even with the extra load from the diversion; I really hope that this arrangement remains afterwards. If nothing else it goes to show that there is a lot of room for tinkering with the roads in town, that could yield benefits to both public and private transport.

[spoonsbeatfish]

http://www.mmu.ac.uk/change/capital-...masterplan.pdf

Page 15 discusses the BRT scheme in terms of its relevance to the MMU All Saints Campus.

The plans suggests to pedestrianise Cavendish Street and to improve the pedestrian environment on Chester Street through wider pavements but to keep it as a vehicular route.

The diagram on page 15 shows Chester Street, Brancaster Road and Sidney Street closed off from Oxford Road. It shows Hulme Street, Charles Street (I think) pedestrianised and Oxford Road (exc bus stops) as only 2 lanes from the Station down to Grosvenor Street.

No idea if any of these ideas will come to fruition as part of the BRT scheme but opinions people? I think that if all these roads were closed off/pedestrianised then the demand for general traffic (which will be allowed past Grosvenor Street) will be a lot lower and so the road could be shortened to two lanes as far as Whitworth Street. This would allow for great improvements to the public realm of the area and continue the scheme through Manchester University up into town.

As for the individual roads, I think Cavendish Street and Lower Osmond Street would do well pedestrianised, improving the general quality of environment in the MMU area and expand the openness of Grosvenor Street. Those roads do not receive that much traffic anyway. Sidney Street doesn't really need access to from Oxford Road with the little traffic it receives and so unnecessarily slowing down the main road.

I think street improvements to Chester Street and pedestrianising Hulme Street would also be beneficial in terms of connecting the city centre to First street but I don't really know about traffic circulations for that area or the need for car access routes.

[staticmeltdown]

Personally, as someone who has previously lived close by, I think pedestrianising Cavendish would be a mistake - it already has wide pavements coupled with a not particularly high pedestrian flow, plus it provides useful car access between Oxford Road and Hulme. The cars that use this route would probably then try to use Rosamond St, which may in turn have to be altered to accept higher levels of traffic.

Personally I think pedestrianisation is overused, and is a pretty lazy option for 'improving' areas - for example one of the reasons Spinnigfields is so dead is that it's virtually closed to traffic. I'm sure more imaginative solutions such as shared space could be introduced, without the negative effects of banning cars totally (ie lack of activity, congestion elsewhere, increased emmissions due to detours etc).

Originally Posted by spoonsbeatfish

http://www.mmu.ac.uk/change/capital-...masterplan.pdf

Page 15 discusses the BRT scheme in terms of its relevance to the MMU All Saints Campus.

The plans suggests to pedestrianise Cavendish Street and to improve the pedestrian environment on Chester Street through wider pavements but to keep it as a vehicular route.

The diagram on page 15 shows Chester Street, Brancaster Road and Sidney Street closed off from Oxford Road. It shows Hulme Street, Charles Street (I think) pedestrianised and Oxford Road (exc bus stops) as only 2 lanes from the Station down to Grosvenor Street.

No idea if any of these ideas will come to fruition as part of the BRT scheme but opinions people? I think that if all these roads were closed off/pedestrianised then the demand for general traffic (which will be allowed past Grosvenor Street) will be a lot lower and so the road could be shortened to two lanes as far as Whitworth Street. This would allow for great improvements to the public realm of the area and continue the scheme through Manchester University up into town.

As for the individual roads, I think Cavendish Street and Lower Osmond Street would do well pedestrianised, improving the general quality of environment in the MMU area and expand the openness of Grosvenor Street. Those roads do not receive that much traffic anyway. Sidney Street doesn't really need access to from Oxford Road with the little traffic it receives and so unnecessarily slowing down the main road.

I think street improvements to Chester Street and pedestrianising Hulme Street would also be beneficial in terms of connecting the city centre to First street but I don't really know about traffic circulations for that area or the need for car access routes.

[nerd]

I am adding this link to the thread - largely so that I will be able to find it in the future.

it gives a very useful summary of most of the current contenders for enhanced bus designs, and crucially a summary of their problems in operation. Probably a bit pessimistic (all new technologies have problems), but it does emphasize the advantages of sticking with a relatively tested solution.

http://www.citytransport.info/Buses03.htm

[heatonparkincakes]

Curiously most of those new bus designs look like wannabe trams!!

Some creative thinking in America and continetal Europe and it would just re-iterate that France is a generation ahead of us in this field

[nerd]

Originally Posted by heatonparkincakes

Curiously most of those new bus designs look like wannabe trams!!

Some creative thinking in America and continetal Europe and it would just re-iterate that France is a generation ahead of us in this field

Perhaps, though I would put a rather different spin on it:

Realistically the TVR and Phileas vehicles don't work.

the Translohr does work, but basically offers much the same package as a tram, in cost and construction terms. Unless you had some very steep hills or twisty streets, I cannot see this as being worth it.

the Civis/Cristalis package works as a trolleybus, but not as a bus. It was trialled for the Leigh busway, but clearly is not now intended for use; but may well be a goer for Leeds.

The ftr is the British package (or Irish if you're being picky), and I think looks more and more like a realistic contender in the field.

Mechanically the ftr is simply a modified Volvo B7 or B9 series articulated bus. It even has the Volvo peculiarity of mounting the engine at the rear left-side, rather than the rear mid (which UK operators tend not to like).

But the consequence is that - even with the tram-style body, air con, etc it only costs around £300,000 apiece (compared with £200,000 for standard Mercedes or Scania articulated buses; or for an Enviro 400 double-decker).

So; nothing fancy, and performance very bus style, with the familiar discomfort for passengers sitting over the engine etc. But it means that the vehicles can be supplied relatively quickly (i.e. they don't need to be individually hand-built like a tram), and they can be maintained, upgraded, and eventually replaced using standard Volvo kit. And they seem to be reliable (which is only to be expected).

The operational issues that have affected ftr have related to the ticketing. The driver/pilot cannot take fares, so the original intention was that riders must either buy a ticket in advance - or use a machine. The ftr buses were fitted with the sort of ticket machines you will be familiar with if you have ever ridden a bus in the US; cash only, no change, flat rate. These failed in the York service, so First changed to using conductors, and all sunsequent UK services have followed.

But GMPTE will have ticket machines installed for the Metrolink service. The same machines ought to be able to be installed at BRT stops - and First would not need to bother about anything; that is so long as they were content to allow GMPTE to control the ticketing.

But basically the ftr is much better atuned as a business concept to the way that bus transport operates in the UK. The PTE supply the route, the opertor supplies the vehicles at their own expense, and covers maintenance and replacement. I can see this as working on both the Oxford Road BRT and for the Leigh busway.

The key is whether First see it as worth their while to tender for the service (bearing in mind that they have won the contract to operate the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway). The Cambridgeshire service will not be using ftr (as they are not wanting articulated buses); but standard Wrightbus Volvo B7s, and Dennis Enviro 400 double deckers.

My guess (given that First and Wright have allowed ftr images to be used for the Leigh busway and Oxford Road BRT publicity) that they are indeed working towards being the operators, and that the ftr is the package they will propose for both services.

If so, I hope thats GMPTE will insist both on Metrolink style ticketing machines, and on integrated ticketing across Metrolink and the two BRT services. Effetively these could be marketed as the Metrolink to the two Unis, and also up the East Lancs road.

But will the public buy it? At present the population of Walkden would rather sit in their cars at 10 km/h, than walk to a bus travelling the same speed. If they were offered what is basically still a bus, but with a 20km/h operational speed, and higher regularity of service; would they think again? I think enough would change their views for the service to be viable. Others may disagree.

[Cherguevara]

I can see this working as a solution to the universities, at least for commuters and casual visitors and to Leigh (where the real time savings will be) but I'm not convinced that a more expensive bus service with few improvements would attract people in Walkden, Swinton etc. where alternatives already exist.

I do agree though that going for a cheaper more flexible solution is probably better. Presumably if it's a success it is something that could be rolled out to other underserved corridors like those on the cross city bus route map bringing a planned, reliable quality bus service to large parts of the connurbation that would be unsuitable for Metrolink even in the long term like those on the map below:

[nerd]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

I can see this working as a solution to the universities, at least for commuters and casual visitors and to Leigh (where the real time savings will be) but I'm not convinced that a more expensive bus service with few improvements would attract people in Walkden, Swinton etc. where alternatives already exist.

I do agree though that going for a cheaper more flexible solution is probably better. Presumably if it's a success it is something that could be rolled out to other underserved corridors like those on the cross city bus route map bringing a planned, reliable quality bus service to large parts of the connurbation that would be unsuitable for Metrolink even in the long term like those on the map below:

well something needs to be done to boost bus travel in Greater Manchester. There does seem to be an increasing demand for decent buses - Manchester is the only Metrolpolitan area outside London where bus travel is increasing - but this is from a desperately low base. Within Greater Manchester, the average annual bus usage is 85 trips per head - with total public transport usage at 101 trips per head. By comparison, Public Transport usage in Reading and in Brighton is nearly 140 trips per head; while in Nottingham (after the introduciton of their tram system) it is nearer 190 trips per head. Passenger transport usage in Edinburgh is even higher.

if Metrolink pahse 3b adds some 50 million trips per year, then this will equate to around 20 trips per head. Manchesters total public transport usage would still be below Reading or Brighton (or Liverpool or Newcastle). Where bus usasge is going up, it seems to be less in commuter trips into and out of the Central Business district (where the growth has been in heavy rail), but rather in shorter bus trips, and trips at weekends (e.g. for shopping).

What this suggests to me is that BRT should be seen as an adjunct to the Metrolink, rather than as an alternative. So I would like to see proposals for short BRT services through satellite centres that are served by Metrolink , rather than into and out of central Manchester. For example, in Oldham a BRT route might run north/south along the Rochdale Road and Ashton Roads - linking the Metrolink line with the Royal Oldham Hospital, the Civic Centre, and Oldham College. A similar service (or perhaps the other end of the same service) could link Ashton Metrolink with Tameside College and Tameside General Hospital. If these services were given Metrolink branding, with Metrolink ticketin and CCTV surveillance, and Metrolink real-time service information, I think the effect would be to boost both bus and Metrolink usage.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by nerd

if Metrolink pahse 3b adds some 50 million trips per year, then this will equate to around 20 trips per head. Manchesters total public transport usage would still be below Reading or Brighton (or Liverpool or Newcastle). Where bus usasge is going up, it seems to be less in commuter trips into and out of the Central Business district (where the growth has been in heavy rail), but rather in shorter bus trips, and trips at weekends (e.g. for shopping).

What this suggests to me is that BRT should be seen as an adjunct to the Metrolink, rather than as an alternative. So I would like to see proposals for short BRT services through satellite centres that are served by Metrolink , rather than into and out of central Manchester. For example, in Oldham a BRT route might run north/south along the Rochdale Road and Ashton Roads - linking the Metrolink line with the Royal Oldham Hospital, the Civic Centre, and Oldham College. A similar service (or perhaps the other end of the same service) could link Ashton Metrolink with Tameside College and Tameside General Hospital. If these services were given Metrolink branding, with Metrolink ticketin and CCTV surveillance, and Metrolink real-time service information, I think the effect would be to boost both bus and Metrolink usage.

The fact that people aren't using buses to commute might just be because of the complete shambles of the system within the county. A widespread BRT system would increase the quality of the service and might be enough to make it a more useful and therefore popular commuting option.

Your idea is a good one though. If the Metrolink/rail can be made more accessible to those not living on the routes then that's only a good thing. There are inner city districts that could equally do with being linked to the Metrolink. A "Metrolink Bus" down Rochdale Road linking to the Metrolink at the new Central Park or Monsall stops would open up the system to the population of north Manchester. A Bury New Road service could link up to both Victoria and Prestwich and make the areas between more desirable to live in. The suburbs are important, but Manchester needs to make its inner city more liveable and better integrated into the economically productive districts if those areas aren't to be a drag on the rest of the conurbation.

[M€trol1nk]

Nearly all of those cities you mention nerd have very few bus companies operating in them.

Counting up the bus operators listed on the GMPTE web site for the county comes to over 60!!!

As che said - our bus services are confusing as hell to joe public, not a surprise they are hardly used.

BRT may go one of two ways - if it adds to the confusion of ticketing, hours of service and frequency then it will be a failure - if it can be simple, reliable and accessible it will work better than the existing buses in my opinion.

[nerd]

Originally Posted by M€trol1nk

Nearly all of those cities you mention nerd have very few bus companies operating in them.

Counting up the bus operators listed on the GMPTE web site for the county comes to over 60!!!

As che said - our bus services are confusing as hell to joe public, not a surprise they are hardly used.

BRT may go one of two ways - if it adds to the confusion of ticketing, hours of service and frequency then it will be a failure - if it can be simple, reliable and accessible it will work better than the existing buses in my opinion.

good point M€trol1nk

there is a good summary of the factors associated with trends in bus patronage here on page 15:

http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/5E0...reas200804.pdf

the authors associate the recent slowing of the rate of decline, and its reversal in Greater Manchester, in part to investment in service improvements (especially simplified ticketing and low floor access). But deregulation can certainly be a delaying factor, as bus operators are wary of investing upfront in increasing the attractiveness of buses along a particular route, if a rival can then step in at the end and undercut them.

Incidentally:

I was wrong in suggesting that First had won the Cambridgeshire contract. In fact it was Stagecoach (who operate most of the buses in Cambridge City itself) They will indeed be running non-articulated Volvo B7s and Scania engined Enviro 400s; upgraded with air-con (or rather air-chill).

http://www.stagecoachbus.com/cambridge/news2_5553.html

"ftr" is the marketing brand for the enhanced buses operated by First group. But Wrightbus are selling the same vehicle as StreetCar (e.g. in Las Vegas, where they are replacing Civis BRT vehicles). I don't know whether First have some sort of exclusive contract for these vehicles in the UK; or whether Stagcoach could operate them, so long as the don't use the ftr brand. Incidentally the Vegas buses are hybrid-engined; which might - to a degree - mitigate the enviromental impact of diesel traction.

[link_road_17/7]

Interestingly:

Reading Buses, 'arms length' management (but still publicly owned).

Brighton&Hove, owned by Go-Ahead, who went for 'local' management

NCT, joint public-private owned (Transdev took a stake, part of the Tram deal),

whereas Manchester is dominated by the largest groups (First, Stagecoach, Arriva).

Amazingly, buses and trams are 'co-ordinated' in Nottingham, despite some bus companies being 'separate'.

If these 'corridors' are created, how about turning over some 4-lane road sections (plenty of width, particularly Ashton Old Road, Rochdale Road) to 'busway' (non-guided) standard?

[Isaac Newell]

You can have private operators with public co-ordination.

http://www.loscolectivos.com.ar/

[M€trol1nk]

Originally Posted by Isaac Newell

You can have private operators with public co-ordination.

http://www.loscolectivos.com.ar/

Still going to have over 60 operators with a mix of fares, frequencies and a million different ways of doing things though aren't we?

[heatonparkincakes]

Nerd said

"The ftr buses were fitted with the sort of ticket machines you will be familiar with if you have ever ridden a bus in the US; cash only, no change, flat rate."

Thats the business for the Nottingham City buses.

A ticket slot next to the driver as you go in. Set fares, put money in slot, ticket, no change.

Nerd also said

"At present the population of Walkden would rather sit in their cars at 10 km/h, than walk to a bus travelling the same speed"

Car - own company, own smell, own music or not, can park where you want.

Bus -others company, others smell, others music, park where it stops.

Only if public transport is faster or cheaper will it attract the car users.

[nerd]

Originally Posted by heatonparkincakes

Nerd said

"The ftr buses were fitted with the sort of ticket machines you will be familiar with if you have ever ridden a bus in the US; cash only, no change, flat rate."

Thats the business for the Nottingham City buses.

A ticket slot next to the driver as you go in. Set fares, put money in slot, ticket, no change.

Nerd also said

"At present the population of Walkden would rather sit in their cars at 10 km/h, than walk to a bus travelling the same speed"

Car - own company, own smell, own music or not, can park where you want.

Bus -others company, others smell, others music, park where it stops.

Only if public transport is faster or cheaper will it attract the car users.

if, as a car user, you are able to park where you want; you are both lucky and very rare. Most city centre car commuters face a five to ten minute walk (and commonly an expensive and unsavoury parking experience).

the odd thing about car transport, is that there is potentially no need for it to be so problematic. There are 35,000 pepole who travel daily into the city centre by car, and they use 26,000 cars to do it (which is in fact the sum total of car-park capacity). That amounts to a loading factor of around 25%. If cars ran at the same loading factor as trams at peak (90%), then the car occupants would only need 8,000 cars, and there wouldn't be a congestion problem.

That might seem totally unrealilstic, but the same people whoo insist on driving to work alone, will happily share their car with three others when going to a football match. Which is why OT and CoMS (which together accommodate far more people than work in the city centre) do not generate anything like the same degree of congestion - even though the proportion of fans travelling by car is higher than the proportion of commuters doing so.

Which is where Rapid Buses come in. At present buses have a loading factor at peak hour of not much better than 40% (i.e. most buses run more than half empty). To justify the extra cost of BRT, the bus loading factor needs to be raised to something close to 75%