Could banning cars from City Centres work?

[HSTEd]

Assuming you're referring to the Leigh Busway, those routes terminate short of the Curry Mile? They do suffer from terrible congestion in the city centre though - one day this week it all came to a complete standstill in the evening peak, there's pictures of queues of buses delayed for up to 2 hours and the jams affected the trams as well. In the case of Manchester, through traffic in the city centre really should be discouraged, but a congestion charge is impossible because the over ambitious scheme already failed at the ballot box.

The Bus Priority Scheme was sold as BRT and extends at least as far as Fallowfield.
Although the actual bus dedicated section terminates at the North end of the Curry Mile.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Buses have to be immune from congestion to be attractive.
They also need off board ticket sales/payment to speed up loading.

This implies a large scale BRT system unlike anything in the UK.

No, it doesn't, it simply implies off-bus ticketing (excellent value season tickets purchased online/at a travelshop, TVMs at busy stops, contactless payment with touch-in/touch-out avoiding a lengthy chat with the driver etc) and properly designed bus lanes with overtakes at EVERY set of lights with the overriding view that the bus does not stop unless it wishes to do so. Also not putting stops 100m apart - about 300-500m is more like it.

You can see all these principles in Germany and the Netherlands - and they've done it for years.

 

[HSTEd]

No, it doesn't, it simply implies off-bus ticketing (excellent value season tickets purchased online/at a travelshop, TVMs at busy stops, contactless payment with touch-in/touch-out avoiding a lengthy chat with the driver etc) and properly designed bus lanes with overtakes at EVERY set of lights with the overriding view that the bus does not stop unless it wishes to do so. Also not putting stops 100m apart - about 300-500m is more like it.

So unlike anything in the UK?

And even then, the bus passes they have in Manchester still restrict loading due to the length of time they take to respond (something like a second on the reader).
And contactless payment takes even longer because you have to tell the driver where you are going, and tapping out will take even longer because you've drastically increased unloading times.

BRT needs access controlled platforms, probably with PEDs to restrict entry and exit. Busy stations need to load and unload through multiple doors per bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So unlike anything in the UK?

Correct.

And even then, the bus passes they have in Manchester still restrict loading due to the length of time they take to respond (something like a second on the reader).

One reason why ITSO is not fit for purpose. Look how quickly Oyster and contactless in London read with a simple, quick tap.

And contactless payment takes even longer because you have to tell the driver where you are going, and tapping out will take even longer because you've drastically increased unloading times.

Only because the UK operators are using poor technology. It is perfectly possible to register touches in a fraction of a second.

BRT needs access controlled platforms, probably with PEDs to restrict entry and exit.

Unnecessary and expensive overkill.

Busy stations need to load and unload through multiple doors per bus.

"On at the front, off at the back[1]" works best as you have a unidirectional flow and boarding can start immediately the doors open. It also allows the driver to catch out those not tapping in. Anyone not tapping out loses out because they get charged the maximum fare for that route.

[1] Actually the back. Middle doors don't work quite as well as you get bidirectional flows through part of the bus - the technology exists now to build buses with a low, flat floor throughout and this allows the back door to actually be at the back.

 

[HSTEd]

One reason why ITSO is not fit for purpose. Look how quickly Oyster and contactless in London read with a simple, quick tap.

Unfortunately ITSO has a massive installed base advantage.
People are not going to adopt new platforms without a lot of money being expended, especially as ITSO is the required spec for all pensioner bus passes.

Only because the UK operators are using poor technology. It is perfectly possible to register touches in a fraction of a second.

Even if that technology is available, and I am skeptical as most contactless implementations I have seen still take a significant amount of time, having to get everyone close to the touch-in and out points still restricts the loading of passengers on and off the bus.

Unnecessary and expensive overkill.

That depends on the number of people boarding and leaving the bus at the stop.

"On at the front, off at the back[1]" works best as you have a unidirectional flow and boarding can start immediately the doors open. It also allows the driver to catch out those not tapping in. Anyone not tapping out loses out because they get charged the maximum fare for that route.

Stopping people slipping on at the rear door with a single crewmember is somewhat problematic though.

 

[radamfi]

BRT needs access controlled platforms, probably with PEDs to restrict entry and exit. Busy stations need to load and unload through multiple doors per bus.

It sounds like you are advocating the purest form of BRT, like what they have in South American cities. The difference there is that buses are being used as a substitute for heavy rail metro as the primary mover of vast numbers of passengers in huge cities. In Europe we prefer to use rail for such corridors. Full blown metro or S-Bahn type service for the busiest corridors and light rail elsewhere. BRT therefore occupies a more niche role where demand does not justify light rail but there is a desire for improved levels of priority compared to a standard bus.

 

[radamfi]

Even if that technology is available, and I am skeptical as most contactless implementations I have seen still take a significant amount of time, having to get everyone close to the touch-in and out points still restricts the loading of passengers on and off the bus.

Which contactless implementations (outside the UK) have you seen?

 

[HSTEd]

It sounds like you are advocating the purest form of BRT, like what they have in South American cities. The difference there is that buses are being used as a substitute for heavy rail metro as the primary mover of vast numbers of passengers in huge cities. In Europe we prefer to use rail for such corridors.

I am advocating that such "pure" solutions should be used where the traffic levels justify them.

For example the system in South Manchester is a mess because buses regularly obstruct each other, which causes no ends of problems.
If the core from Fallowfield into the centre of town was engineered as pure BRT we would get drastically reduced journey times and could do so without abandoning the benefits of having buses that can go on any streets at the end of the route.

(The first step would be to abolish Magicbus if Bus Franchising is adopted, so people heading north on the corridor would simply board any bus that is available, apart from the 147)

Full blown metro or S-Bahn type service for the busiest corridors and light rail elsewhere. BRT therefore occupies a more niche role where demand does not justify light rail but there is a desire for improved levels of priority compared to a standard bus.

The advantage of BRT is that it can be both at the same time.
You can use PEDs with off board payment on the core of the route but revert to conventional bus operation on the ends of the route.

This allows us to build an extensive network at much lower cost than a solution based on rail transit.

Which contactless implementations (outside the UK) have you seen?

I was referring to the systems of contactless payment within the UK but outside the bus industry.
Any reasonable system will obstruct boarding simply by requiring all passengers to board adjacent to the driver, and requiring passengers to place a card in near contact with the reader in sequence.

If boarding is unrestricted then passengers can board in parallel through multiple doors and potentially two near-abreast.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if that technology is available, and I am skeptical as most contactless implementations I have seen still take a significant amount of time, having to get everyone close to the touch-in and out points still restricts the loading of passengers on and off the bus.

Do you use the bus in London often? While there's only touch-on, what you say is simply not my observation. People touch as they pass the driver, only stopping if it fails. It's genuinely no slower than boarding a Routemaster was. It's the whole reason conductor operation became pointless.

Stopping people slipping on at the rear door with a single crewmember is somewhat problematic though.

It doesn't seem that much of an issue in London, it almost feels like there's a force field by the centre doors. But the driver can always watch in his mirror and employ the newspaper method (stop engine, paper out, wait for someone to chuck the offender off) if it is breached.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This allows us to build an extensive network at much lower cost than a solution based on rail transit.

Ah, that's where you're coming from. I don't want to see this bus use-case in the UK. Buses are for connecting people to rapid transit rail (or to the city centre in small cities and from nearby non-rail-served suburbs) in my book. The "fake tram" model simply doesn't cut the mustard in the UK.

 

[Sprinter107]

I am advocating that such "pure" solutions should be used where the traffic levels justify them.

For example the system in South Manchester is a mess because buses regularly obstruct each other, which causes no ends of problems.
If the core from Fallowfield into the centre of town was engineered as pure BRT we would get drastically reduced journey times and could do so without abandoning the benefits of having buses that can go on any streets at the end of the route.

(The first step would be to abolish Magicbus if Bus Franchising is adopted, so people heading north on the corridor would simply board any bus that is available, apart from the 147)

The advantage of BRT is that it can be both at the same time.
You can use PEDs with off board payment on the core of the route but revert to conventional bus operation on the ends of the route.

This allows us to build an extensive network at much lower cost than a solution based on rail transit.


I was referring to the systems of contactless payment within the UK but outside the bus industry.
Any reasonable system will obstruct boarding simply by requiring all passengers to board adjacent to the driver, and requiring passengers to place a card in near contact with the reader in sequence.

If boarding is unrestricted then passengers can board in parallel through multiple doors and potentially two near-abreast.

If boarding is unrestricted, theres a big danger of fraudulent travel.

 

[radamfi]

I was referring to the systems of contactless payment within the UK but outside the bus industry.

You should see route 300 which operates between Amsterdam airport and neighbouring suburbs. This is probably the nearest we get in Europe to South American style BRT (unless anyone knows better?) but it works perfectly well with touch in touch out smartcards. Tickets are sold on the bus but only a few tickets are sold as it is usually cheaper to use the nationwide smartcard. The university BRT route in Utrecht probably has higher peaks of demand and uses extra long double articulated buses but students get free travel in the Netherlands so the route allows open boarding. This route will be replaced by a tram (currently under construction).

 

[edwin_m]

If the core from Fallowfield into the centre of town was engineered as pure BRT we would get drastically reduced journey times and could do so without abandoning the benefits of having buses that can go on any streets at the end of the route.

… so people heading north on the corridor would simply board any bus that is available

You can have one or other of those things but not both!

The reason for the large scale BRTs in places like South America and Istanbul is the scarcity of capital and abundance of relatively cheap labour and possibly cheap oil too. Buses are cheap to buy but under Western conditions and where passenger numbers are high trams are cheaper to operate, mainly because the lower rolling resistance uses less energy and a single driver can operate a larger vehicle. BRT has its place at medium passenger numbers and it's arguable that tramways that only have a service every five minutes or so on their busiest section are under-using the expensive infrastructure. But BRT still creates local pollution and even if electrically powered there would still do so from tyre wear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What Wilmslow Road needs is a tramway down it and all internal combustion-engined rubber-tyred vehicles completely banned north of Dickenson Road, other than a narrow window of access for deliveries at a suitably off-peak (crack of dawn would probably work) time.

Anything else is just going to be a fudge.

 

[HSTEd]

If boarding is unrestricted, theres a big danger of fraudulent travel.

Not if you restrict access to the platforms, as BRT does in South America.

 

[HSTEd]

You can have one or other of those things but not both!

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting there?

The reason for the large scale BRTs in places like South America and Istanbul is the scarcity of capital and abundance of relatively cheap labour and possibly cheap oil too. Buses are cheap to buy but under Western conditions and where passenger numbers are high trams are cheaper to operate, mainly because the lower rolling resistance uses less energy and a single driver can operate a larger vehicle

Thanks to the idiocy of Treasury capital cost specifications, capital is extremely scarce in the UK as well.

And if you are comparing like with like, buses don't do too badly against trams.
Bi-articulated buses allow for a driver to operate a vehicle carrying something like 250 passengers.

But the advantage of BRT is that the infrastructure does not all have to be installed to enable a useful service to operate.
For example, 800m of tunnel or elevated guideway or similar diversion would allow a step change in service quality on the South Manchester bus corridor by bypassing the 'Curry Mile'.
Even a tunnel of that length is likely to cost a tiny fraction of an alternative non-bus based transport solution.

BRT has its place at medium passenger numbers and it's arguable that tramways that only have a service every five minutes or so on their busiest section are under-using the expensive infrastructure. But BRT still creates local pollution and even if electrically powered there would still do so from tyre wear.

If we are in a situation where tyre wear pollution is our major problem then we have essentially solved air pollution!
And medium pasenger numbers is a rather large number of schemes where we need some form of high quality public transport offer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the advantage of BRT is that the infrastructure does not all have to be installed to enable a useful service to operate.
For example, 800m of tunnel or elevated guideway or similar diversion would allow a step change in service quality on the South Manchester bus corridor by bypassing the 'Curry Mile'.
Even a tunnel of that length is likely to cost a tiny fraction of an alternative non-bus based transport solution.

There is absolutely no need for a bus tunnel under Wilmslow Road. Close it to motor vehicles and whack a tramway down it. Problem solved.

 

[HSTEd]

There is absolutely no need for a bus tunnel under Wilmslow Road. Close it to motor vehicles and whack a tramway down it. Problem solved.

Fitting a tramway through the Curry Mile is going to cause serious problems for many of the shops and the like down there.
It will prompt a chorus of complaints and public opposition the likes of which you have never seen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fitting a tramway through the Curry Mile is going to cause serious problems for many of the shops and the like down there.
It will prompt a chorus of complaints and public opposition the likes of which you have never seen.

I would be very surprised if it did anything of the sort. You can get back access to much of it from other roads, anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

I would be very surprised if it did anything of the sort. You can get back access to much of it from other roads, anyway.

Quite a lot of the street, including a brand new underground car park accessible only from the street.
It is a major thoroughfare, it would be extremely difficult to ram through a closure of the road - honestly if it was so easy it would already have been done.

There is a reason the restricted access section of the road terminates immediately north of the Curry Mile.

 

[158756]

There is absolutely no need for a bus tunnel under Wilmslow Road. Close it to motor vehicles and whack a tramway down it. Problem solved.

Is it really that bad that a bus only road is needed? It's very likely that any plan to close the road would be strongly opposed by the local residents and businesses. The streets around the Curry Mile aren't full of students to the same extent as the rest of Wilmslow Road, they wouldn't be keen on the greatly restricted access (apart from the obvious North-South traffic, any local East-West journeys have to use some part of the road) for a scheme to benefit the students and people out in Didsbury.

Wilmslow Road has lots of buses because it has lots of students - but the students largely only care about the fare and maybe whether they get a seat. A tram or BRT isn't going to get lots of extra journeys or higher fares from them. To be worthwhile any tram scheme would have to reach out to Didsbury, without the space to do so except by running on the main roads, and in the short term creates the problem of preventing any public transport at all on the busiest bus route in the city for however long it takes to build.

 

[HSTEd]

Is it really that bad that a bus only road is needed? It's very likely that any plan to close the road would be strongly opposed by the local residents and businesses. The streets around the Curry Mile aren't full of students to the same extent as the rest of Wilmslow Road, they wouldn't be keen on the greatly restricted access (apart from the obvious North-South traffic, any local East-West journeys have to use some part of the road) for a scheme to benefit the students and people out in Didsbury.

It is not unusual for it take 25 minutes or more to transit the curry mile, a distance of about 800m.
Often buses multiple busses are queued up only feet apart on the route.

This is hardly suitable to make the bus a popular public transport option, which is one of the reasons it is relatively poorly used by the general populace.

If the curry mile problem can be solved, more people and buses could be routed onto the corridor to make use of the existing infrastructure and easing congestion across much of South Manchester.

 

[158756]

It is not unusual for it take 25 minutes or more to transit the curry mile, a distance of about 800m.
Often buses multiple busses are queued up only feet apart on the route.

This is hardly suitable to make the bus a popular public transport option, which is one of the reasons it is relatively poorly used by the general populace.

If the curry mile problem can be solved, more people and buses could be routed onto the corridor to make use of the existing infrastructure and easing congestion across much of South Manchester.

I think for the same money or political cost of a scheme on Wilmslow Road you could do a lot more in other parts of the city. Whatever difficulty buses on Wilmslow Road have in attracting passengers is nothing compared to the rest of the city, or almost anywhere outside London.

The traffic on the Curry Mile doesn't prevent a bus running practically every minute already, so there is no need of more buses, and certainly not to reroute buses from places with a much more modest service. Transport for London would probably say the solution to the issue is to get rid of most of the buses.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting there?

You stated that a BRT allows buses to disperse onto a variety of routes at the outer end, which is true. But you also claimed a benefit because passengers would board the first bus that arrived, rather than waiting for a specific one. This won't be completely true if passengers for the outer ends of the route need to wait for the specific bus that serves their street.

Thanks to the idiocy of Treasury capital cost specifications, capital is extremely scarce in the UK as well.

And unlike other western European countries we have several medium-capacity BRTs, which are probably the most cost-effective option for the demand they carry and its dispersed nature. But we don't have Curitiba-style maximum-capacity BRTs.

And if you are comparing like with like, buses don't do too badly against trams. Bi-articulated buses allow for a driver to operate a vehicle carrying something like 250 passengers.

You're talking about a vehicle around 25m long, for which 250 would be a crush load. Metrolink operates coupled pairs nearly 60m long and some continental cities operate single units longer than that. So if you're on a route with enough passengers to sustain that size of vehicle at an attractive frequency, the tram is the more efficient way of doing it.

If we are in a situation where tyre wear pollution is our major problem then we have essentially solved air pollution!

If you replace the curry mile buses with electric trams you have essentially solved air pollution on that corridor. Research seems to suggest that tyre particulates are not much less than diesel particulates from a similar vehicle, so even an electric bus option would leave a big chunk of the pollution unchanged. It's probably not a deal-breaker for BRT but it ought to be taken into account, especially for a scheme running on the highway in close proximity to people (mostly unlike Luton, Cambridgeshire etc). In fact a battery bus, being heavier, would have more tyre particulates. There are also particulates from friction braking but I assume an electric bus (or tram) would essentially eliminate these by regenerative braking.

And medium pasenger numbers is a rather large number of schemes where we need some form of high quality public transport offer.

We do, and the bus in general ought to be doing a lot more as part of a public transport network. But does the Oxford Road corridor count as medium? ​

 

[HSTEd]

You stated that a BRT allows buses to disperse onto a variety of routes at the outer end, which is true. But you also claimed a benefit because passengers would board the first bus that arrived, rather than waiting for a specific one. This won't be completely true if passengers for the outer ends of the route need to wait for the specific bus that serves their street.

In this case I was referring prmiarily to the specific nature of the Oxford Road corridor, where people are discouraged from boarding the first bus to their destination because of the artificial split between regular buses and Magicbus.
This will hopefully be solved by bus franchising, assuming it actually goes through.

(Probably a mistake to mention it in the same post but sorry)

And unlike other western European countries we have several medium-capacity BRTs, which are probably the most cost-effective option for the demand they carry and its dispersed nature. But we don't have Curitiba-style maximum-capacity BRTs.

The thing baout these BRTs is they can be mixed on a single corridor in a way that most other systems cannot.
(Also heading into the centre of the city on these systems tends to be much better for this because there are fewer branches in that direction)

For example off-board ticket checking can be implemented at a handful of the highest throughput stations indepedently of the rest of the line.
Fore xample stations could be built at the two students unions and at the entrance to Fallowfield campus.
This would substantially speed the journey without having to install brand new infrastructure across the entire route.

You're talking about a vehicle around 25m long, for which 250 would be a crush load. Metrolink operates coupled pairs nearly 60m long and some continental cities operate single units longer than that. So if you're on a route with enough passengers to sustain that size of vehicle at an attractive frequency, the tram is the more efficient way of doing it.

Yeah, but trams cost a £100m/km or more.
So that efficiency is bought at a very steep price.

If you replace the curry mile buses with electric trams you have essentially solved air pollution on that corridor. Research seems to suggest that tyre particulates are not much less than diesel particulates from a similar vehicle, so even an electric bus option would leave a big chunk of the pollution unchanged. It's probably not a deal-breaker for BRT but it ought to be taken into account, especially for a scheme running on the highway in close proximity to people (mostly unlike Luton, Cambridgeshire etc). In fact a battery bus, being heavier, would have more tyre particulates. There are also particulates from friction braking but I assume an electric bus (or tram) would essentially eliminate these by regenerative braking.

Well there are other ways to have an electric bus than batteries, and it's hard to get much good data on the cost of trolleybus electrification independent of the road improvements modern trolleybus schemes love to add as part of scope creep. (See the Leeds example).​

 

[Bletchleyite]

We do, and the bus in general ought to be doing a lot more as part of a public transport network. But does the Oxford Road corridor count as medium?

Yes - as part of a network. Buses are not for trunking, they are for connectivity. Trunk routes need rail of some kind.

 

[HSTEd]

I think for the same money or political cost of a scheme on Wilmslow Road you could do a lot more in other parts of the city. Whatever difficulty buses on Wilmslow Road have in attracting passengers is nothing compared to the rest of the city, or almost anywhere outside London.

Other parts of the city don't have the traffic density or potential traffic density.
If the 800m through the Curry Mile can be sorted then you can revolutionise the bus network across half of South Manchester.

The traffic on the Curry Mile doesn't prevent a bus running practically every minute already, so there is no need of more buses, and certainly not to reroute buses from places with a much more modest service. Transport for London would probably say the solution to the issue is to get rid of most of the buses.

The bus routes are in certain need of rationalisation, but not by necessarily thinning out the bus route significantly, but by using this potential high speed, high capacity corridor to provide a benefit to the entire system.

For example the V1/V2 should be merged with some of the short Magicbus routes (in other words, extend south of the MRI to Fallowfield).
The 111 should be broken so the southern tip is transferred to one of the 14x bus routes (in the vicinity of Copson Street in Didsbury).
The 10x bus routes should then be broken at Southern Cemetary and the new extended 111/14x hybrid route should run south and take over the southern half of the 10x routes.

Cross platform interchanges within gate lines can be established where necessary using off board ticket checking - which removes many of the issues associated with changing buses.
People will receive better journey times which will be more reliable thanks to the elimination of as much on-road running as possible.

 

[edwin_m]

Well there are other ways to have an electric bus than batteries, and it's hard to get much good data on the cost of trolleybus electrification independent of the road improvements modern trolleybus schemes love to add as part of scope creep. (See the Leeds example).

High capacity bus routes, however powered, need work to provide the necessary segregation and priority either on-street or as a segregated alignment. You said as much up-thread, perhaps even to the extent of providing a tunnel! These need to be counted as part of the scheme cost as they would be with trams, and in some circumstances a bus-based scheme will need more highway works because of the larger number of smaller vehicles (eg overtaking at stops). This can't really be dismissed as scope creep unless the provision is excessive.

I agree the method of powering is only part of the equation, but without batteries or some other on-board power source the electrification needs to extend over the entire route of any trolleybus. This to some extent nullifies the benefit of being able to provide through service to a wide range of low-frequency routes in the suburbs, as all of them would need electrification even if they don't need any other work. And buses, however powered, will have tyre particulate emissions to some degree.

 

[HSTEd]

High capacity bus routes, however powered, need work to provide the necessary segregation and priority either on-street or as a segregated alignment. You said as much up-thread, perhaps even to the extent of providing a tunnel! These need to be counted as part of the scheme cost as they would be with trams, and in some circumstances a bus-based scheme will need more highway works because of the larger number of smaller vehicles (eg overtaking at stops). This can't really be dismissed as scope creep unless the provision is excessive.

The difference is I am proposing 800m of tunnel on a many kilometre existing alignment, most of which needs little if any work on it!
Providing a tram on Oxford Road would require tram tracks to be laid along the entire alignment, whereas a Bus based solution can concentrate this work on places that actually need it.

I agree the method of powering is only part of the equation, but without batteries or some other on-board power source the electrification needs to extend over the entire route of any trolleybus. This to some extent nullifies the benefit of being able to provide through service to a wide range of low-frequency routes in the suburbs, as all of them would need electrification even if they don't need any other work. And buses, however powered, will have tyre particulate emissions to some degree.

Dual mode trolleybuses are available, and provide a handy way of recharging buses on the move if you want to go for a battery bus, which will not need to be able to travel the distances a conventional bus can without recharging.

It is also worth noting that particulate production from rail based solutions is also significant, especially with the use of track brakes such as those found on tram systems.
This is one of the major reasons that air quality on the deep tube is so bad.

 

[edwin_m]

It is also worth noting that particulate production from rail based solutions is also significant, especially with the use of track brakes such as those found on tram systems.
This is one of the major reasons that air quality on the deep tube is so bad.

Track brakes on trams are emergency only and in my experience very rarely used. The Tube does not have them but it does have friction brakes on the wheels - however the newer fleets mostly use regeneration instead.