sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bus, First Bradford, First Leeds, Guided bus, Transit bus

Kerb guided 51 Kerb : is this affordable LRT? With two kerb-guided bus projects operating successfully in and another having recently been launched in , Robert Bain interviewed Dr. Bob Tebb – First Yorkshire’s Operations Technical Manager – to find out why Yorkshire is fast becoming the guided bus capital of the world. The interview prompted Robert to look a little closer at guided bus, and its strengths and weaknesses in the context of innovative public solutions.

On Sunday 26th March 1972, trolley- all compared to other services. • : At bus stops – on the bus No. 844 made its way back to the Although the concept was being ad- guideway or on ordinary roads – with Thornbury depot in Bradford; the last vanced in Yorkshire – indeed, a guide- the appropriate kerb height, the vehi- to carry paying passen- way and equipped were oper- cle’s guide wheel allows the driver to gers in Britain. Over 60 years of trolley- ated on test from 1989 – Ipswich beat ‘dock’ against the stop, achieving uni- bus operation had ended and the ‘mo- Leeds to the post and launched its own form close contact to allow easy, level torbus’ henceforth reigned triumphant. guided bus service in January 1995. The with a fixed 50mm kerb-ve- That event and its location are signif- Kesgrave guided bus scheme in Ipswich hicle gap. As part of the package of icant. Only a decade later with (a) trans- employs a 200m two-way guideway act- quality bus improvements, the East planners looking at an impending ing as a bus gate between two housing Leeds Scheme partners rebuilt 350 bus fuel crisis, (b) much of the local trolley- estates previously without direct road stops in its York Road corridor pre- bus infrastructure still in place and (c) links. cisely for this purpose – thereby bene- trolleybus-trained staff still employed, fiting users and those ac- the potential for the return of the trol- Why guided bus? companying prams. leys to Yorkshire streets was very real An early motivator behind the drive for and was being actively pursued by a guided bus in Leeds was the limited Preparing for guided bus in Leeds number of people. Indirectly, this led to land take required by this priority mea- The Leeds Transport Strategy was ap- Dr Bob Tebb, guided bus. sure. Although the width of a bus is proved in 1991 and envisaged a range First Yorkshire’s During a fact-finding mission to Eu- only 2.5m, traditional bus lanes are of solutions for the city’s most heavily Operations rope, local planners and policy-makers around 3.75m or 4m wide to allow for congested radial corridors. This was no visited the guided ‘duo-bus’ system in lateral movement/displacement. Take one-size-fits-all approach. Guided bus Technical Essen, Germany (duo- have two steering ‘off the bus’ – ie. employ a was identified for two corridors: the Manager and drive systems: a conventional diesel en- guidance technology – and you can re- A61 (Scott Hall Road) to the north and guided bus guru. gine and a trolleybus-like electric drive duce the cross-sectional requirement the A64 (York Road) to the east. These system). They returned impressed with (‘kinematic envelope’) to 2.6m. In are both tight, well-defined corridors how had evolved and, as a short, you can locate guided busways in with an absence, at their inner ends, of direct result, the subsequent Leeds places where bus lanes would be im- the sort of sprawling housing develop- Transport Strategy suggested a local role practical. And, as planners know to ment found in other parts of the city for the guided bus concept. their frustration, where urban traffic which makes mainline bus service pro- congestion is at its worst, roadspace is vision less appropriate. Interestingly, Guided bus elsewhere in the UK frequently in short supply. from a socio-economic perspective, the The first kerb-guided bus initiative in Bob Tebb points out that, although former was not necessarily the most at- the UK was Tracline 65 which operated this remains an attractive attribute, two tractive in terms of being traditionally along a former line in Birming- other system features now dominate strong bus territory. That would ham from 1984 to 1987, using double- over space considerations: change. deck buses. The service stopped after • Self-enforcement: Even minor traffic Feasibility studies demonstrated that three years, not because of any techni- violations (eg. parked cars, abuse by guided bus investment along both cor- cal problem, but because – somewhat other road users) can significantly ridors represented value-for-money understandably – this pioneering tech- erode the potential benefits associated (positive net present value). The more nology had been deployed on a ‘safe’ with bus lanes. Guideways with twin capital intensive York Road proposals route segment which experienced rela- concrete running strips – precisely the (£8m) suggested greater benefits how- tively little traffic congestion. In the re- width of a bus – and a grass or ever, due to financial constraints, the cently deregulated environment with gravel area in between physically Scott Hall Road corridor (£4m) was the many institutional changes, the new deter other traffic. (Alternative forms first to be introduced. Bob Tebb com- operator saw little benefit in continuing of deterrent – such as ‘elephant traps’ - ments, acknowledging hindsight, that with the experiment – despite a re- are employed on other guideways this was a blessing as the lighter bus ported 26% increase in patronage over- around the world). traffic – and the fact that there was only

tec FEBRUARY 2002 52 Kerb guided bus

tended to include another major bus operator () in the East Leeds Scheme.

Phased introduction The first section of guideway on Scott Hall Road opened in September 1995. An interesting characteristic of guided bus is that phased introduction leads to the realisation of immediate benefits. New were deployed but the key service parameters – such as timetabling, routes, scheduled journey times etc – were held constant. The op- erator reported a 9% increase in patron- age in the subsequent two months; enough to cover the cost of the on-vehi- cle equipment within a couple of years. Other works along the corridor (more guideways, bus lanes and junction re- modelling) were progressed as finance Accessibility is a one operator – allowed for an easier but less so with alternatives – was dic- dictated. major attribute of learning curve. Critical to the success of tated by financial constraints, funding As Bob Tebb points out, the evolu- the system. At the initiative, bus operators across the being made available in £1m/year tionary approach to the guideways and bus stops with the city supported the guided bus concept awards. The selection of kerb-guided complementary enhancement mea- appropriate kerb from the outset, even those who would technology (see separate box) reflected sures along the corridor will continue not be using the guideways. Further- the fact that other guidance technolo- into the future as new congestion ‘hot height, the more, strong support and goodwill gies (also separate box) were largely un- spots’ appear and/or other challenges vehicle’s guide from the other scheme partners (the proven at the time. for bus operations materialise. In the wheel allows the City Council and the Trans- The Public Private Partnership (PPP) meantime, peak hour journey times driver to ‘dock’ port Executive) created a positive envi- behind the guided bus initiative has have nearly halved and patronage has against the stop ronment dedicated to practical problem been mentioned already. Initially this increased by over 75% since that first achieving uniform solving. involved (the bus operator, guideway deployment. Estimates sug- close contact to The implementation approach was to providing services with high quality, gest that between 10% and 20% of new allow easy, level identify congestion hot spots along the guidewheel-equipped superbuses), Leeds have shifted from car. boarding. corridor and to focus City Council (guideways, bus lanes, sig- attention there, in terms of solutions nal priority etc.) and Metro, the Passen- The East Leeds quality bus initiative designed to allow buses to advance to ger Transport Executive (information, The East Leeds scheme opened on the the front of traffic queues. Incremental shelter provision, stops and so forth). 6th November, 2001 and runs along the deployment – possible with guided bus Subsequently the partnership was ex- A64 (York Road), a major trunk radial Kerb guided bus: What’s happening elsewhere?

The first, commercial kerb guided bus Fastway network is to be constructed operation commenced in Essen, Ger- in three phases each taking one year. many, in 1980, followed by Birming- Approximately £17m of the costs are ham in 1984 (see main feature) and being funded by the private sector. The then Adelaide, Australia, in 1986. The cludes 2km of central guided busways route consists of 24km, 3km of which Essen and Adelaide schemes are com- in the £7m infrastructure package. have been designed as guided busway. prehensively described in the litera- Incidentally, six ‘half guided’ buses Demonstrating that this type of ini- ture (and on the web: see Internet Ref- were deployed in Northampton in tiative is seldom carried forward by erences) and still operate today, having 1996/97 along one corridor without a one organisation, the consortium be- been extended over the years. So too guideway. Docking stops were con- hind Fastway includes West Sussex does a small system in Mannheim, structed for the low floor buses (with County Council, Surrey County Coun- Germany – opened in 1992 and the guidearms on the nearside only) to cil, Crawley Borough Council, Reigate first scheme to provide docking stops. provide the accessibility benefits dis- and Banstead Borough Council, BAA Next came Ipswich (1995) closely cussed in the main feature. Gatwick, British Airways, followed by Leeds (Scott Hall Road Throughout the rest of the UK, kerb and the Go Ahead Group. [1995], York Road [2001]) and, most guided bus has been proposed (or is Fastway will commence operations recently, Bradford (2002). The Brad- being proposed) for Chester, Edin- in 2003 and aims to be fully opera- ford scheme is part of a 3.5km Quality burgh, Leigh, Hull, Oxford and Cam- tional by early 2005. For further infor- Bus Initiative along the heavily con- bridge. However the most recent an- mation about Fastway, contact Liz gested A641. The Bus Initiative, a part- nouncement about kerb guided bus Oliver at: nership between the bus concerns the ambitious Fastway initia- [email protected]. company, the Passenger Transport Ex- tive in the Gatwick/Crawley/Horley uk, or visit the website: ecutive and Bradford Council, in- area. Costing an estimated £29m, the www.westsussex.gov.uk/fastway

tec FEBRUARY 2002 Kerb guided bus 53

with heavy traffic volumes and serious he is – rightfully – proud of the kerb congestion. As before, it is comprised of guided bus achievements in Leeds and The technology a package of measures including new Bradford. He emphasises the impor- Kerb guided bus is the form of me- buses, traffic signal prioritisation, tance of safety considerations at each chanical guidance most exten- 2.6km of new bus lanes, 2.1km of me- stage in the design and development of sively deployed on buses. As the dian guideway and enhanced infra- the guided bus initiatives, in terms of name suggests, the kerb (or a verti- structure (eg. the 350 ‘accessible’ bus pedestrian access and pedestrian cross- cal upstand on either side of the stops mentioned earlier). ings, and to the extent that the space- route) is used to steer the vehicle However it also has some unique saving attribute of the technology has through the use of sensing rollers – characteristics, not least of which is the largely been forfeited to provide addi- or guidewheels – positioned ahead financial arrangement. Of the £10m tional adjacent safety space for pedestri- of the bus’ front wheels. The guide- total infrastructure cost, the bus opera- ans. wheels, using 180mm diameter tors (First Leeds and ARRIVA Yorkshire) Take space considerations out of the solid rubber tyres, are mounted on a put up £5m, split to reflect the benefits equation and he acknowledges that J-beam bolted to the back of the that each would receive from the initia- much of the operational achievement front wheel assembly. tive. Furthermore, this happened in a could have been realised with non- The bus remains a standard vehi- deregulated operating environment in guided busways, although at the ex- cle with standard steering. The only which any bus operator could take ad- pense of self-enforcement, the high modification to the vehicle that is vantage of the enhanced infrastructure. level of accessibility enjoyed by passen- required is the installation of the To the extent that there is no exclusive gers and with less long-term security for guidewheels, protruding 5cm on ei- right to use of the guideways, this repre- the priority measures’ continued exis- ther side of the bus. This modifica- sented a relatively risky strategy by the tence. tion adds around £2,000 to the cost bus operators – but one that appears to Looking forward, passenger vol- of a £120,000 bus. No one manufac- have paid off. umes on Scott Hall Road are now ap- turer holds the patent for the Due to high passenger demand, both proaching levels at which double deck guidearm/guidewheel unit (no sin- ARRIVA Yorkshire and First Leeds oper- vehicles will be needed there too. Fur- gle vendor lock-in!) and the charac- ate double deckers along the York Road thermore, equipping the vehicles with teristics vary slightly from supplier corridor. ARRIVA Yorkshire runs 20 and GPS-based vehicle location technol- to supplier, however the principles First Leeds runs 37; all units with ogy will enable the traffic signal pri- and performance remain the same. TransBus Alexander bodywork. First oritisation to be fine-tuned and lends Bob Tebb points out that, in this Leeds also operates some Scania single itself to the provision of real-time pas- context, the phrase ‘guidable bus’ is deckers (identical to those used on Scott senger information. However, return- more accurate than guided bus and, Hall Road). Early indications suggest ing to a theme he introduced at the indeed, reflects one of the key that passengers are responding well to start of the interview, he reinforces the strengths of this technology – its in- the initiative and both bus operators fact that guideway development has herent flexibility. For much of its appear to be satisfied. been conducted on an as-where-and- time – beyond the guideway – the when basis and that the process of hot bus performs as a regular service ve- The past and the future spot identification and the partner- hicle on the highway and is oper- Ask Bob Tebb to reflect on the past and ship approach to problem solving are ated (steered) manually as usual. For gaze into the future and it is clear that on-going commitments. this reason, system proponents de- scribe kerb guided bus as offering the best features of road and rail, satisfying both line-haul and feeder/distributor requirements. The guideway typically comprises two reinforced concrete running The kerb (or a tracks with a 1.2m drainage strip (eg of ballast) in the centre. Variants of vertical upstand this configuration exist but the on either side of principles remain the same. Tarmac the route) is used may offer a marginally enhanced to steer the ride quality under normal circum- vehicle through stances however can not be used in the use of a guideway because of deformation sensing rollers – due to plasticides in the tarmac and or guidewheels – the fact that the wheel path is ex- positioned ahead actly the same during each pass. of the bus’ front The running tracks have a lateral wheels. The kerb set 2.6m apart. The width from guidewheels, the outer faces of the guidewheels using 180mm on the bus is maintained at just diameter solid below 2.61m – giving a slight inter- rubber tyres, are ference fit which stops the bus mounted on a J- ‘hunting’ (oscillating laterally) while beam bolted to in motion. Having ridden on guided the back of the buses, the author can bear testament front wheel to the smoothness of the ride. assembly.

tec FEBRUARY 2002 54 Kerb guided bus

Observations and conclusions ally the attributes. ular preference for rail over bus when Having interviewed Bob Tebb, visited • Although the extent of modal shift service characteristics are equal. the Leeds guided busway schemes, con- (private car to ) can be • The benefits of guided bus have less to sidered case studies from elsewhere, disputed and varies from location to do with vehicle guidance and associ- conducted a literature review (see Refer- location, passengers are attracted to ated technologies and far more to do ences) and consulted with a number of guided bus simply because of its pres- with segregation of road-based public professionals and academics in the field, ence – ‘the carrot’. There is every rea- transport vehicles from the general it is possible to draw some conclusions son to believe that this modal shift traffic mix, thus ensuring quick and from the kerb guided bus experience could be further enhanced through reliable journey times. and make the following observations: the modest application of some of the • In the UK, the future looks reasonably • As with many transportation initia- ‘sticks’ available to planners and pol- bright for guided bus, with it having tives, the success of these schemes re- icy makers. recently been extended in Yorkshire lies on a partnership approach with • By being able to retain the inherent (Leeds and Bradford), with the an- goodwill from all sides. Fundamental flexibility of the bus, acting as its own nouncement of the ambitious Fast- to the success of the partnership is a system feeder/distributor, the need for way initiative – the first guided bus champion with foresight and determi- separate feeder modes and inter- scheme in the south east of – nation. The Leeds/Bradford experi- change facilities is considerably re- and with it being actively considered ence demonstrates this clearly. duced. Use of the phrase ‘guidable as part of Quality Bus proposals by a • Given the correct circumstances, fi- bus’ helps to highlight this benefit. number of other towns and cities. nancial contributions from the pri- • The negative aspects commonly asso- • Cost comparisons between Bus vate sector can be harnessed to benefit ciated with bus (slow, unreliable Transit (of which guided bus is one ex- bus infrastructure development while services due to congestion, inaccessi- ample) and Transit consis- still making good business sense to bility, noise, pollution, discomfort tently demonstrate that the capital those private contributors – even in a and poor, low-technology image) are costs associated with bus-based deregulated/competitive operating all system attributes specifically ad- schemes are less than rail-based alter- environment. dressed in modern, quality guided bus natives, commonly by a considerable • Being able to locate guided busways systems. margin. In theory, therefore, a city within relatively confined roadspace • Following on from the above, research could provide wider coverage of Bus is an important feature, however self- in the US and experience elsewhere than Light Rail Transit enforcement and accessibility are re- shows that passengers have no partic- for an equivalent budget. Alternative guidance technologies As part of its preparations for the introduction of the Quayside Transit problems, particularly in terms of safety (when transferring between au- scheme, a high quality bus service linking the centres of Newcastle and tomatic and manual guidance) and noise. These problems led to each Gateshead with the Quaysides area, the Quayside Transit Working system being shut down to allow technical inquiries to take place. Group commissioned a state-of-the-art review of automatic bus guid- As the main features describes, a number of kerb guided busways ance technologies and alternative fuels from the Transport Operations have been operating successfully for some time – for example Adelaide, Research Group (TORG) at Newcastle University. One of the intentions Essen, Ipswich and Leeds. In Paris, a 1.5km guideway forms part of the of the Quayside Scheme is to run alternatively fuelled vehicles, under Trans val de Marne (TVM) busway used by a Guided Light Train and, in automatic guidance, along a section of the North Mannheim, guided buses operate on 800m of Quayside. track shared with . Earlier, in the summer of 1996, a trial was under- In the majority of the proposals being consid- taken along part of this section of the proposed ered for guided bus in the UK, kerb guidance is the route of the Mercedes-Benz/AEG enhanced elec- preferred approach, although electronic automatic tronic automatic guidance system as part of the guidance was a strong contender for the Mersey European Commission’s LIFE programme. The sys- Waterfront link in Liverpool. tem utilised a dual underground cable approach Recent developments in automatic guidance and has since also proved successful on the elec- technology have seen the demonstration, in July tronically guided Mercedes service vehicles operat- 2000, of the vehicle by manufacturers ing in the Channel Tunnel. After the trial, the automatic guidance tech- Lohr. This system uses two front rollers running on a central guideway nology was passed on to a UK-based company, Transport Design Inter- to steer the vehicle. Under automatic guidance, power may be supplied national, and incorporated subsequently into the Minitram overhead via a pantograph although other fuels are being considered transportation system. when running under manual guidance. The CIVIS project involving The Quayside Transit Working Group’s investigations have identified and -Matra is investigating optical guidance technolo- a number of health and safety issues regarding automatic electronic gies. Field trials of a system began in February 2001, (picture above) in- guidance systems that are currently being addressed. Similar safety con- volving a dashboard-mounted camera, a video-monitoring system and cerns were a contributory factor in the cancellation of the Millennium a road-marking recognition system. Plans are to implement the system shuttle service between London and Greenwich. in North Las Vegas along the northern section of the Las Vegas Boule- An alternative approach to automatic vehicle guidance has been vard. Neoplan has also been involved recently in the development of a adopted by manufacturers Bombardier for its low-floor Guided Light guidance system based on loops embedded 20-30mm into Tram (GLT), whereby small metal wheels run in a central groove in the the pavement. A similar system was tested as early as 1984 in Furth by pavement to assist steering. The transport authorities in the French MAN, Bosch, Mercedes-Benz and Dornier. cities of Caen and Nancy have since adopted this system with tramways Additional reporting by Neil Thorpe and John Nelson, operational from 2000/01. However, both systems suffered teething TORG, Newcastle University

tec FEBRUARY 2002 Kerb guided bus 55

• The costs associated with guided bus BRT in the US and the time taken for its implemen- (BRT) in general is tation suggest that, even where Light currently receiving considerable at- Rail Transit or other transport tech- tention in the United States as tran- nology may be the preferred long- sit agencies seek to improve the reli- term solution, guided bus could have ability and speed of local services. a role as an interim measure, provid- Various measures are used including ing early service enhancements and dedicated busways, high occupancy protecting the right of way in readi- vehicle lanes and traffic signal pri- ness for further development. oritisation techniques. In September 2001, the US Gen- In closing, it would appear that, in eral Accounting Office reported to the debate of urban bus versus urban Congress the findings of a study rail, advocates of each technology have which sought to: become more entrenched in their views 1. Examine the Federal role in sup- over the years. This, despite the fact porting BRT; that the choice has become manifestly 2. Compare the capital costs, operat- more difficult to make – not simpler. ing costs and performance char- Each case needs to be judged on its mer- acteristics of BRT and light rail its in the specific local circumstance schemes; within which it is being considered. 3. Describe the other advantages Some politicians may continue to and disadvantages of BRT and favour the ‘monument status’ of light of Contemporary UK Projects, Institute for light rail. rail, but as the competing system fea- Transport Studies, Leeds. The study concluded that: tures continue to converge – through ● Pilgrim, R. D. (2000). Are We Pricing • BRT systems generally had lower initiatives such as guided bus – passen- Light Rail Transit Systems Out of Range?, capital costs per mile than the light gers’ preferences will be expressed more A Comparison of Cost Experiences. rail systems in the cities reviewed. vocally in terms of system performance, Proceedings of the American Public • Neither system had a clear advan- not system technologies. Transit Association LRT Conference, tage in terms of operating costs. November 11 – 15, Dallas. • Dedicated busway costs ranged Acknowledgements ● Read, M. J., Allport, R. J. & Buchanan, from $7m/mile to $55m/mile with The author is particularly grateful to Dr P. (1990). The Potential for Guided an average cost of $13.5m/mile. Bob Tebb and Chris Goulthorpe for Busways, Traffic Engineering & Control, • Light rail systems had capital costs their cooperation and help during the pp. 580 – 587, November 1990. ranging from $12.4m - preparation of this article. Gratitude is ● Scrafton, D. (2000). Service Quality & $118.8m/mile, with an average also expressed to two independent re- System Technology in Public Transport cost of $34.8m/mile. viewers for their direction and valuable Planning & Operations, Transport Systems • The largest BRT system ridership comments: John Austin of Austin Ana- Centre, University of South Australia. was about equal to the largest light lytics and Derek Scrafton of the Univer- ● Sephton, P. J. & Tebb, R. G. P. (1992). rail ridership. sity of South Australia. Responsibility Putting the Bus Back on the Rails – The • BRT routes showed generally for the accuracy of the information and Guided Bus Route to Rapid Transit, higher operating speeds that light the views expressed in this article is, C437/028, Proceedings of the Institution rail lines. however, the author’s own. of Mechanical Engineers, IMechE 1992. • BRT provided a more flexible ap- ● Sislak, K. (1999). Bus Rapid Transit as a proach than light rail because: References Substitute for Light Rail Transit, i. Buses could be routed to elimi- ● BMBF (undated). Spurbus Essen Proceedings of the American Public nate transfers (Guided Bus Essen), Federal Ministry of Transit Association LRT Conference, ii. Buses could be operated on Education, Science, Research and November 11 – 15, Dallas. busways, HOV lanes and city Technology, BMBF. ● Steer Davies Gleave (1997). Scott Hall arterial streets ● Bray, D. & Scrafton, D. (1999). The Road Monitoring, iii. BRT could be implemented in Adelaide O-Bahn: Ten Years On, Steer Davies Gleave. stages. Proceedings of the American Public ● Tebb, R. G. P. (1993). Possible • In general, buses have a poor pub- Transit Association LRT Conference, Application of Guided Bus Technology in lic image but BRT systems can be November 11 – 15, Dallas. Britain – Operational Design Implications, designed to offer improved service ● Daugherty, G. G. & Balcombe, R. J. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil over standard bus services. (1999). Leeds Guided Busway Study, TRL Engineers: Transport, 1993, 100, • As light rail is permanent in a cor- Report 410, Transport Research Laboratory. November, 203-212. ridor, it could influence economic ● Daugherty, G. G., Balcombe, R. J. & ● Tebb, R. G. P. (1999). Experience in the development over time and that Astrop, A. J. (1999). A Comparative Role of Bus Guidance in Quality Bus could help to justify the higher Assessment of Major Bus Priority Schemes Provision, unpublished draft. capital cost of light rail. in Great Britain, TRL Report 409, Robert Bain is a Although not focussed on guided Transport Research Laboratory. Internet References PhD research bus, the full Congressional report ● General Accounting Office (2001). Mass www.apta.com/homepage/busstop.htm student at ITS, (Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, www.britishbus.co.uk/bradford.htm Leeds. He can Shows Promise) makes fascinating GAO-01-984, Report to Congressional www.firstleeds.co.uk/superbus/html/index. be contacted at: reading. It can be downloaded from: Requesters, United States General html [email protected] www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf Accounting Office. www.lrta.org/facts55.html c.uk ● ITS (1998). Kerb Guided Bus: A Review www.mantra-transport.fr

tec FEBRUARY 2002