The Open University ’ s repository of research publications and other research outputs Can bus really be the new tram ?

BRT appears to be less expensive to build and operate than tram systems but can it really approach the performance level of a tram system and what is the environmental performance of comparable systems? This paper reports systematic research on these issues, particularly relating to where an urban transit system seeks to attract discretionary car users. A model has been developed to compare the implementation, operational costs and environmental impacts of a comparable tram and high quality guided BRT system. This models a UK situation, but draws upon information from elsewhere in Europe and North America. The design of the BRT system delivers equivalent performance to trams in capacity and passenger experience. This ‘equivalence’ model shows that the capital costs of the high-spec BRT system are two-thirds those of tram. This is less of a cost saving than is often claimed, suggesting that, in practice, BRT is built to a lower specification that tram systems. Operational costs do not significantly differ. Using hybrid-engine BRT vehicles, CO2 emissions are similar, BRT has lower PM10 emissions, but NOx from BRT remains higher than for trams. Although the cost differences for equivalent systems are less than is often claimed, there are substantial benefits in the flexible development of BRT, with it less vulnerable to variations from forecast ridership numbers, and development can be split into fundable stages, growing the business case for incremental upgrading. High-spec BRT can to be the new tram, but the ‘value for money’ case for BRT should not be at the expense of quality and transport planning impact. 1. The demise of Light Rail and emergence of Bus Rapid Transit The development of new light rail systems in the U.K. has all but ceased after the construction of a handful of large city schemes. Only Edinburgh is now seeing the construction of a new tram system, and this is beset with serious programme, project overrun and overspend issues (Foster, 2011). There are some extension projects underway to existing tram systems, including Nottingham (NET), Birmingham (Midland Metro) and Manchester (Metrolink), but these are exploiting the existing investment in their initial systems. A number of schemes have failed in the planning stages, including Liverpool, Leeds and South Hampshire. In the wake of this, a UK National Audit Office report (NAO, 2004) concluded the failings of light rail to be: • Too costly when compared to buses • Existing schemes financial performance is poor • Local funding is necessary in addition to central government funding but is difficult to obtain • The planning timescales are excessively long These points were picked up in a recent review by Hall (2011), who compared the UK institutional and funding context to that of France, with its plethora of light rail schemes successfully implemented even in quite small urban areas. Faced by this difficult institutional and regulatory context for new tram schemes, guided and higher-technology bus-based systems have seen growing popularity. Guided-buses have been recently introduced in Leeds, Bradford and Crawley (Fastway). Segregated bus running (without guidance) has been developed for the Thames Gateway (Fastrack) and the ftr Streetcar high quality bus has been used for services in Swansea, York and Luton. All of these systems or services have been developed in the last 10 years. BRT is advocated as a lower cost alternative to light rail, but a crucial issue whether it can be made equally attractive to car users to produce modal shift? Furthermore, what is its environmental performance compared to electrically-powered light rail? These questions are at the centre of the Open University project reported in this paper. A central conceptual issue in answering these questions is how to construct an evaluation of the two systems. This paper reports on how a basis of ‘Equivalence’ has been developed to do this and how this framework has been applied in a validating test case study. 2. Light Rail and Guided-bus Passenger Experience Equivalence 2.1 Defining Equivalence In situations where a transit system is intended to cut car use, a guided-bus system would have a better transport policy case if it could generate similar modal transfer from private vehicles as can be achieved by light rail. The attractiveness of light rail has been demonstrated whereas bus-based systems are seen as less attractive to potential passengers, who generally seem wary of public transport and have a low opinion of buses whether guided or not. One way of generating ridership numbers for buses similar to light rail would be to make the bus look and feel like a tram; in other words provide an equivalent experience to the light rail system and vehicle. An example is the Phileas guidedbus system in the Dutch city of Eindhoven. This low emissions hybrid-engined powered bus operates on magnetically-guided busways, segregated from other traffic along most of its route, including some elevated sections. The vehicle is internally and externally very tram-like and operates a clearly identifiable branded service. It provides a passenger experience that is near equivalent to that of a modern LRT tram. From a system perspective, the definition of equivalence has been addressed through the development of a typology to enable the classification of all forms of light rapid transit across four modes: tram-train, light rail, trolley-bus and guided-bus. The latter two represent a definition of Bus Rapid Transit (for details of this method see Hodgson and Potter, 2010). This typology method includes three tests that were derived from the system definition exercise to enable a bus-based system to be determined as being equivalent to light rail. These were that the vehicle must have: