|
First principles assessment
Why introduce Guided Bus?
Short and Long Run Demand Responses
Supply Impacts
Financing requirements
Expected Impact on Key Policy Objectives
Contribution to Objectives
Expected impact on problems
Contribution to Alleviation of Key Problems
Expected Winners and Losers
Barriers to Implementation
Why
introduce Guided Bus?
The underlying argument for introducing guided bus systems is that they
provide opportunities to implement dedicated busways where road space
is in short supply and, hence, where conventional bus lanes could be impractical.
This means that they are particularly well-suited to congested conditions,
as they represent a means of increasing bus speeds and reliability for
the minimum loss of road space to other vehicles. Two further reasons
for implementing kerb guided bus systems, specifically, are that they
provide opportunities to improve physical access to the bus by minimising
the vertical and horizontal gaps between the bus and the kerb at the bus
stop and that the physical segregation from other traffic provided by
the kerbs means that it is impossible for other vehicles to block the
guideway. In this way, kerb guided bus systems are 'self-enforcing', as
opposed to interventions such as bus lanes Bus Priority
and street running light
rail which require some degree of police enforcement in order
to protect the rights of way for the vehicles for which they are intended.
They also provide for considerable flexibility in operations, in that
a suitably adapted bus can travel on a guideway where this is available
but can also travel on any other part of the road network as required.
This means that, in contrast to light
rail, distributed access to the guided bus corridor can be
provided easily in outer suburbs using the same vehicles. They are also
very flexible in that guidance need only be provided where and when traffic
conditions deem it appropriate. For example, guideways may be constructed
at particular congestion 'hot spots' to allow suitably equipped buses
to enter the guideway, advance to the front of a traffic queue, and then
leave the guideway to re-enter the main traffic stream. This allows for
incremental implementation, whereby self-contained, perhaps relatively
short, sections of guideway may be constructed ready for use by suitably
equipped vehicles straight away, rather than having to wait for a network
of guideways to be constructed. This means that benefits can start occurring
early on in the process. It also means that, as congestion becomes worse,
or as it changes its location, new sections of guideway may be added relatively
easily.
Short and Long Run Demand Responses
Guided bus systems provide a high quality public transport alternative
to car travel so they are likely to impact on the demand for travel by
car, as people switch from car to guided bus, and by other forms of public
transport, as people switch from lower quality public transport services
to guided bus. The attraction of public transport users from other, lower
quality public transport on that, or other, corridors may, however, detract
from the viability of those other services and result in a reduction in
their supply. The extent to which guided bus will draw it's demand from
car as opposed to from lower quality public transport services will depend
on whether guided bus is viewed as being on a par with existing bus services
or more closely related to a rail service. This is an important question
but one on which the answer is not yet clear.
The increased physical accessibility of kerb guided bus systems will
provide new travel opportunities for people who have difficulties with
conventional bus services (eg, older people, disabled people, parents
with buggies etc). These (?) public transport quality enhancements are
also likely to generate new public transport journeys. Hence, guided bus
systems will not only impact on the demand for car travel and the demand
for other public transport travel, but will impact on the total demand
for travel within the area.
Responses and situations outlines potential responses to the introduction
of guided bus systems and the situations in which particular responses
are encountered.
|
=
Weakest possible response, |
|
=
strongest possible positive response |
|
= Weakest
possible negative response, |
|
= strongest
possible negative response |
|
= No response
|
Short and Long Run Demand Responses
The nature of guided bus means that it's implementation is usually phased
over time, which consequently means that it's demand impacts are also
phased over time. Short term impacts on public transport patronage are
likely to be noticeable but may largely comprise transfers from other
bus services, either in the corridor in question or immediately adjacent
corridors, to the guided bus services; such transfers may involve people
diverting from their previous route in order to travel on the guided bus
corridor. As the system becomes more established journey-time savings
and journey-time reliability may be more noticeable, facilitating some
changes in people's departure times. These time-savings and reliability
improvements provide a strong potential to attract car-users to guided
bus, particularly where there is traffic congestion.
|
=
Weakest possible response, |
|
=
strongest possible positive response |
|
= Weakest
possible negative response, |
|
= strongest
possible negative response |
|
= No response
|
Supply Impacts
Guided bus systems have the effect of reallocating road space from general
traffic to bus traffic at particular points in or along particular stretches
of the road network. In this sense they do not actually affect the total
supply of road space. However, by re-allocating space in favour of public
transport in a way which minimises the loss of space for general traffic,
they are an effective means of increasing the potential flow of people
travelling along a particular road. Thus, in this sense they increase
the capacity of the affected road.
A guided bus service will tend to replace, or represent an enhancement
to, existing bus services along the corridor in question. So again in
this sense they do not necessarily increase the supply of buses within
the affected corridor. However, by freeing up buses and their drivers
from delay due to congested traffic conditions, they allow for a more
efficient use of the bus fleet and driving crew. These efficiencies may
then be passed on to the travelling public in the form of cost savings
or service improvements, eg increased service frequencies along the route
(or along other routes via redeployment of buses and drivers); alternatively,
the efficiencies may be recycled within the bus operating company, eg
in the form of higher wages.
Another way in which kerb guided bus systems affect supply is via their
provision of step-free access on to and off the bus. In doing this, they
increase the share of physically accessible public transport services
within an area and, hence, change the nature of the public transport network.
Financing requirements
Bus rapid transit systems in general, and guided bus systems in particular,
will tend to be considerably less expensive, in terms of capital costs,
than rail-based systems, though operating costs for bus-based and rail
based systems will tend to be relatively similar. A US study showed that
the capital cost of constructing dedicated busways ranged from 7m dollars
per mile to 55m dollars per mile, with an average cost of approximately
13m dollars per mile (General Accounting Office, 2001). Remembering that
guideways will typically only be provided at certain key points along
a bus route, a guideway can have a relatively significant impact at a
relatively low cost. For example, some projects involve guideways along
less than 10% of the bus route. For comparison, the same study showed
an average cost for constructing a light
rail line of 34m dollars per mile. In contrast with guided
bus, a light rail line must be provided for the full length of the route.
Expected Impact on Key Policy Objectives
The diversion of car journeys to guided bus will contribute to economic
efficiency, environmental and, to a lesser extent, safety objectives,
whilst the new travel opportunities will contribute towards accessibility-related
objectives and towards economic growth. The attraction of public transport
users from other, lower quality services will represent benefits for those
people switching, but any reduction in the supply of those other services
will, at least partially, offset these benefits and may detract from accessibility-related
objectives and economic growth.
Whilst guided bus systems are likely to have positive equity implications,
since they offer a service which can be used by all, these benefits are
limited to the corridors directly served, and any corresponding reduction
in bus services may disadvantage certain groups of travellers.
The positive impacts of guided bus systems depend critically on their
ability to attract patronage. As noted above, if guided bus is perceived
by car users as a slightly improved bus it will be unlikely to contribute
significantly to key objectives and will perform much as bus priority
measures do Bus Priority. If it is seen as
a higher quality service approaching that of rail, its impact will be
much greater.
Contribution to Objectives
Objective |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
|
|
Time savings should be significant and reliability should
be substantially improved but will depend upon an effective bus
operator and the extent of traffic congestion on parts of the network
where there is no guideway |
|
|
an increased level of bus use will be associated with an
increased level of pedestrian activity and any reduction in traffic
congestion should have positive impacts |
|
|
Reduced road traffic levels will have a positive impact,
but the extent will be determined by the potential to attract motorists
to switch to guided bus |
|
|
Guided bus systems provide for increased mobility both
for those with and without access to a car, and potentially provide
particular benefits for those with physical access difficulties |
|
|
Bus is a relatively more safe mode than car and the guidance
technology adds to the safety of the bus |
|
|
Guided bus systems will generate a proportion of totally
new trips, some of which will be for purposes related to economic
activity; |
Expected impact on problems
Where they attract car-users, guided bus systems have considerable potential
to contribute to the alleviation of congestion-related and environmental
problems; where they re-allocate road space away from the car there may
also be some adverse impacts on congestion, though these should be less
than in the case of light
rail which requires more road space than does guided bus. In
addition, there may be some adverse impacts on community severence unless
stringent efforts are made to assist people to cross the guideway, eg
via the use of pedestrian controlled crossing facilities. Again, impacts
will depend on the extent to which it is perceived as a slightly improved
bus or as a higher quality service approaching that of rail.
|
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
|
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
|
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
|
=
No contribution |
Expected Winners and Losers
Group |
Winners / losers |
Comment |
Large scale freight and commercial
traffic |
|
Re-allocation of road space
in favour of the bus represents a loss of road space for freight and
other traffic, though this may be offset if the effect of the guided
bus system is to reduce congestion |
Small businesses |
|
Generation of new trips may
be associated with an increase in local economic activity |
High income car-users |
|
Re-allocation of road space
in favour of the bus represents a loss of road space for other traffic,
though this may be offset if the effect of the guided bus system is
to reduce congestion |
People with a low income |
|
People with lower incomes would
tend to already be bus-users so would benefit from an improvement
to bus services, though this may be eroded if the guided bus has premium
fares or if it abstracts from bus services on adjacent corridors and
make them less viable |
People with poor access to public
transport |
|
Guided bus systems would tend
to be established along existing public transport corridors |
All existing public transport
users |
|
Existing public transport users
along or near to the guided bus corridor will be affected in a number
of different ways; some will enjoy access to faster, more reliable
bus services, some may experience over-crowding on the service, some
may Those people who live within easy walking distance of the guided
bus corridor will enjoy an enahcned bus serviceexperience reductions
in the level of competing bus services |
People living adjacent to the
area targeted |
|
People who live within walking
distance of the guided bus corridor will enjoy access to the improved
bus services, however the reduction in public transport use on parallel
routes may lead to a reduction in the level of service on those parallel
routes |
People making high value, important
journeys |
|
any time savings resultting
from reductions in congestion will be highly valued |
The average car user |
|
To the extent that car traffic
is reduced, the average car-user may enjoy some improved journey times
and journey time reliability |
|
=
weakest possible benefit, |
|
=
strongest benefit |
|
= weakest
possible disbenefet, |
|
= strongest
possible disbenefit |
|
= neither
wins nor loses |
Barriers to Implementation
Scale of Barrier
Barrier |
Scale |
Comment |
Legal |
|
Some form of planning approval
or traffic regulations will generally be required, though usually
no need for legislation or public inquiry |
Finance |
|
Total scheme costs are generally
relatively low and can be phased over time |
Political |
|
Re-allocating road space away
from general traffic is likely to give rise to protests from local
car-owning residents, as well as from some local business and competitor
bus operators without suitably equipped vehicles. Promoters of alternative
technologies, such as light rail, might also be expected to be in
opposition |
Feasibility |
|
May be institutional difficulties
where the local highway authority is separate to the local public
transport authority and/or where there are competing bus operators.
May also be design and engineering issues associated with minimising
any negative impacts on local access |
|
=
minimal barrier, |
|
=
most significant barrier |
|