Cambridgeshire guided busway

[hdennis13]

You obviously haven't been to the Grafton Centre lately. It is less than 50% occupied. Upstairs in the Grand Arcade now has lots of empty units.

The retailers are vacating grafton as the owner of the building is planning to convert roughly half for science and tech labs.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm sorry but saying the overruns on the busway are not as bad as HS2 is a lame excuse. The busway is very costly for what it has delivered so far. It was supposed to be a high speed high frequency service and it is neither.


Not all of them, but lots of them, and the proportion is growing. The big push for property in Cambridge is more lab space, because labs is the part of the Cambridge economy that is growing most rapidly. The biomedical campus has a big new lab building currently being fitted out with site preparation work already started for 2 more.


No, these days there is little employment in the old city apart from tourism, retail and hospitality. For bus travel to and from work/education the old city is now behind the biomedical campus, the station area and the science park/CRC. For the old city a very big chunk of its bus traffic is well looked after by park and ride.


You obviously haven't been to the Grafton Centre lately. It is less than 50% occupied. Upstairs in the Grand Arcade now has lots of empty units.


What I'm wedded to is making best use of the infrastructure that Cambridge already has, and, in particular, grasping the opportunity that comes next year when Cambridge South opens. That can only be done by breaking way from the outdated 20th century notion that the Cambridge transport network has to be hub and spoke based on the old city. What is needed is something completely different: to manage congestion it is necessary to eliminate as many as possible of journeys that pass through the old city, but where the old city is not the origin or destination. Heavy rail and the guided busway both have a key part to play in that, by making the most of their comparative advantages. The guided busway is here, and better use needs to be made of it. Done right, the busway could at last deliver properly for Cambridge. That means guided buses going up and down the guideway, not stuck in traffic in the old city. For going between the north side of Cambridge and the south side of Cambridge, people need to be on the train, doing the journey in 10 minutes, instead of being stuck in a bus that takes anything from 30-60 minutes, and uses up valuable space on the congested old city roads.

Talk about judicious interpretation and trimming of quotes!

As I pointed out, Borders Rail was also significantly over budget and that’s a rather direct comparison. No one would suggest it’s not a success on that basis?

To blithely dismiss tourism, retail and hospitality as major industries and employers seems rather selective too. 22% of all jobs in Cambridge were in tourism (according to 2017 figures). The old city is still the major traffic objective; fully accept the science park, Addenbrookes etc are extremely important but we can’t simply dismiss the single biggest traffic objective being the city centre.

Busways, guided or otherwise (and they won’t be guided as technology will make enforcement easier) will be central to future transport solutions. With straitened public finances, lower cost (capital) solutions will be increasingly to the fore.

 

[Magdalia]

The retailers are vacating grafton as the owner of the building is planning to convert roughly half for science and tech labs.

You have that back to front. The owner is converting the building for science and tech labs because the retail tenants have gone. The two anchor tenants, BHS and Debenhams, ceased to trade, with no alternative tenants. Others have also ceased to trade or moved out as a result.

To blithely dismiss tourism, retail and hospitality as major industries and employers seems rather selective too. 22% of all jobs in Cambridge were in tourism (according to 2017 figures).

What is your source for that please? And what is the definition of tourism? It sounds implausible to me.

And 2017 is a long time ago for Cambridge. Taking the biomedical campus as an example, Royal Papworth and AstraZenenca, plus at least 4 other big new buildings, have opened on the biomedical campus since 2017.

Cambridge needs a transport network that works for the people who live and work there, especially those working in the high productivity tech and life science industries. Economically tourism is a low productivity industry which is actually a drag on economic growth because it consumes resources that could be more productively employed elsewhere. Cambridge would function better economically, and contribute more to the UK economy, with fewer tourists. I am unashamedly selective in favour of the needs of the tech and life science industries over the needs of tourism. That's what the UK needs to do to get from a no growth economy to a high growth economy.

Busways, guided or otherwise (and they won’t be guided as technology will make enforcement easier) will be central to future transport solutions. With straitened public finances, lower cost (capital) solutions will be increasingly to the fore.

No single mode will be central to solving Cambridge's transport issues, it needs a much more nuanced approach. Busways may have a part to play in that. One thing we can agree on is that, if they do, any new busways won't be guided.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You have that back to front. The owner is converting the building for science and tech labs because the retail tenants have gone. The two anchor tenants, BHS and Debenhams, ceased to trade, with no alternative tenants. Others have also ceased to trade or moved out as a result.


What is your source for that please? And what is the definition of tourism? It sounds implausible to me.

And 2017 is a long time ago for Cambridge. Taking the biomedical campus as an example, Royal Papworth and AstraZenenca, plus at least 4 other big new buildings, have opened on the biomedical campus since 2017.

Cambridge needs a transport network that works for the people who live and work there, especially those working in the high productivity tech and life science industries. Economically tourism is a low productivity industry which is actually a drag on economic growth because it consumes resources that could be more productively employed elsewhere. Cambridge would function better economically, and contribute more to the UK economy, with fewer tourists. I am unashamedly selective in favour of the needs of the tech and life science industries over the needs of tourism. That's what the UK needs to do to get from a no growth economy to a high growth economy.


No single mode will be central to solving Cambridge's transport issues, it needs a much more nuanced approach. Busways may have a part to play in that. One thing we can agree on is that, if they do, any new busways won't be guided.

However, @hdennis13 is fundamentally correct that whilst retail has declined, that space is being repurposed and for jobs. Whilst this happens elsewhere, it shows that Cambridge isn’t suffering from the malaise of many northern towns and cities. That much is evident walking around the place.

As for the amount of tourism related jobs,

The visitor economy is a key economic driver for Cambridge with 8.1 million visitors a year contributing around £835 million to the Cambridge economy and accounting for around 22 % of local employment (source: Cambridge Economic Impact of Tourism Report 2017).

It’s also put at >20% in a statement from earlier this year https://www.toposophy.com/insights/greater-cambridge

You may well regard tourism as a low wealth, low worth business but you can’t deny its existence or importance? Not everyone is going to be an astronaut or scientist and you’d do well to remember the adage about the moon landings. Selectiveness is well and good when choosing a career but not when analysing or dismissing statistics.

Rail will be part of the mix with the new South station but new alignments and new rails… Forgive me, but given how long East West Rail has taken to get where it has, I doubt that new track will be chosen in favour of non guided busways.

 

[Magdalia]

However, @hdennis13 is fundamentally correct that whilst retail has declined, that space is being repurposed and for jobs. Whilst this happens elsewhere, it shows that Cambridge isn’t suffering from the malaise of many northern towns and cities. That much is evident walking around the place.

Cambridge is indeed a thriving local economy but there are constraints that are holding it back, one of which is the local transport network. It is crying out for a change of focus away from what the local economy was and towards what it is going to be.

It’s also put at >20% in a statement from earlier this year https://www.toposophy.com/insights/greater-cambridge

This is a one page consultant's pitch for a contract with no verifiable source.

You may well regard tourism as a low wealth, low worth business but you can’t deny its existence or importance? Not everyone is going to be an astronaut or scientist and you’d do well to remember the adage about the moon landings. Selectiveness is well and good when choosing a career but not when analysing or dismissing statistics.

One of the reasons why the UK had low growth is that it concentrates too much on employment numbers and not enough on value added. Not all employment has the same value. It is absolutely right that there are local people still not feeling the benefit of the thriving economy, but part of the answer to that issue is adapting the transport network giving them better connectivity to where the new jobs are.

The city has also recovered strongly following the pandemic, attracting 8.2 Million trips in 2022 and is widely expected to have exceeded 2019 levels when data is released for 2023.

Even if we take the consultant's pitch at face value, it is clear that tourism's contribution to the local economy is still no bigger than it was before the pandemic, and is probably still smaller. We have already established that retail has declined significantly. The existing bus network of park and ride and citi routes has served old city, and its tourism, adequately (if not brilliantly) both before and since the pandemic. There's no compelling evidence that tourism in the old city needs major new investment in transport infrastructure.

At the same time the biomedical campus has grown hugely both in employment, and, more importantly, in value added.

You repeatedly deride me for being selective, but, when the public finances are severely constrained, selectivity is imperative. Investment in Cambridge transport has to be with a laser focus on the high value added and fastest growing sectors of its economy.

If Cambridge didn't have booming tech and life science industries, none of them located in the old city, it is unlikely that we would be having this discussion.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Cambridge is indeed a thriving local economy but there are constraints that are holding it back, one of which is the local transport network. It is crying out for a change of focus away from what the local economy was and towards what it is going to be.


This is a one page consultant's pitch for a contract with no verifiable source.


One of the reasons why the UK had low growth is that it concentrates too much on employment numbers and not enough on value added. Not all employment has the same value. It is absolutely right that there are local people still not feeling the benefit of the thriving economy, but part of the answer to that issue is adapting the transport network giving them better connectivity to where the new jobs are.



Even if we take the consultant's pitch at face value, it is clear that tourism's contribution to the local economy is still no bigger than it was before the pandemic, and is probably still smaller. We have already established that retail has declined significantly. The existing bus network of park and ride and citi routes has served old city, and its tourism, adequately (if not brilliantly) both before and since the pandemic. There's no compelling evidence that tourism in the old city needs major new investment in transport infrastructure.

At the same time the biomedical campus has grown hugely both in employment, and, more importantly, in value added.

You repeatedly deride me for being selective, but, when the public finances are severely constrained, selectivity is imperative. Investment in Cambridge transport has to be with a laser focus on the high value added and fastest growing sectors of its economy.

If Cambridge didn't have booming tech and life science industries, none of them located in the old city, it is unlikely that we would be having this discussion.

I’m pointing out that you are very selective in the information that you focus upon. For instance, I’ve provided the information on the amount of tourism related jobs - it’s a figure from 2017 that is repeatedly used, not just in a consultants pitch, and is consistently quoted by the tourist authority and BID as is the annual visitor number. That there are 8 million visitors annually isn’t something to be ignored. Much as the same way that I highlighted various transport schemes that have run over budget - not just the Busway - that you selectively edited quotes. Tourism took a battering in 2020 naturally - that it has regained its position so quickly doesn’t tell you something? If we were to believe that the old city is such a busted flush, it would be easy to introduce bus only lanes etc given the dearth of traffic being attracted?

Constrained finances mean you have to be selective but also naturally shape what can be done. Hence lower capital cost options become more attractive. For that reason alone, I’d not bank on EastWest reaching Cambridge in my lifetime (e.g. by 2050).

 

[renegademaster]

three deaths on the busway

I know it sounds a bit sensitive but how many people have died from being hit by normal busses in Cambridge over the same time? 3 doesn't sound much over the time period they have operated when you consider how many RTAs there are

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Sep 2024 ==

, I doubt that new track will be chosen in favour of non guided busways.

Will any future busways have to be squeezed into old BR alignments?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I know it sounds a bit sensitive but how many people have died from being hit by normal busses in Cambridge over the same time? 3 doesn't sound much over the time period they have operated when you consider how many RTAs there are

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Sep 2024 ==


Will any future busways have to be squeezed into old BR alignments

It is, of course, very sad with injuries and fatalities; hence agreeing with the statement that “the gift that keeps giving” being condemned. Sadly, there are sometimes design issues that are only highlighted when something goes wrong.

Using old rail alignments need not require guided buses; all depends on cuttings/embankments/bridges and whether you want a dedicated path and cycleway etc. Gosport and Fareham is on a former rail line IIRC

 

[joieman]

3 doesn't sound much over the time period they have operated when you consider how many RTAs there are.

And it's also worth comparing the statistics with those of tramways and railways.

 

[renegademaster]

And it's also worth comparing the statistics with those of tramways and railways.

Their's been a few metrolink pedestrian fatalities, Croydon has had a few too , plus the infamous crash, putting a tramway there instead wouldn't make it any safer .

 

[Magdalia]

I’ve provided the information on the amount of tourism related jobs - it’s a figure from 2017 that is repeatedly used

But I've yet to find an instance that gives the original source and how it is derived. All of those quoting that number have a vested interest.

Tourism took a battering in 2020 naturally - that it has regained its position so quickly doesn’t tell you something?

It tells me that tourism is just about back where it was before the pandemic, with no real growth, a bit like the UK economy as a whole. Pandemic excluded, it is steady state, not growth, and it is growth that is needed.

If we were to believe that the old city is such a busted flush, it would be easy to introduce bus only lanes etc given the dearth of traffic being attracted?

I'm not saying that the old city is a busted flush, though it was very quiet when I visited this morning. What I'm saying is that it is no longer the economic centre of gravity for Cambridge, and transport planning needs to adjust to that.

Regarding bus lanes, the arterial roads in Cambridge have had bus lanes since park and ride was introduced. But most of them are one direction only because the roads are single carriageway and not wide enough for two bus lanes. Some of the roads are not wide enough for any bus lanes at all. In Cambridge the width of the carriageways is the main constraint for introducing bus lanes not level of traffic. Cambridge being almost entirely a single carriageway road network also makes road works very disruptive because they almost always involve "single line working" with temporary traffic lights, and this is a major contribution to congestion.

There is a concurrent discussion here about the school run, which is another of the main contributors to traffic levels and congestion in Cambridge.

Constrained finances mean you have to be selective but also naturally shape what can be done. Hence lower capital cost options become more attractive. For that reason alone, I’d not bank on EastWest reaching Cambridge in my lifetime (e.g. by 2050).

I'm trying hard not to say anything about East West Rail (EWR) until after we know more about planning reform, what's in the budget, and what Lyons/Barker recommend about New Towns. Until then anything on transport infrastructure investment, including EWR, is just speculation.

 

[greenline712]

So ... given that the Busway is here and is unlikely to be converted to a railway without huge expense; and also given that the the road network in Cambridge is unable to be expanded to accommodate bus priorities ... what might the future hold??
What should the new precept of £11m (I think that's the annual value) for improved public transport be spent on??

We seem to have rambled around the subject (and seem unlikely to agree) for a while, so .... where do we go now?? Free Park and Ride with quadruple car park charges?
2 BPH as a minimum on all rural bus routes?

 

[hdennis13]

Regarding bus lanes, the arterial roads in Cambridge have had bus lanes since park and ride was introduced. But most of them are one direction only because the roads are single carriageway and not wide enough for two bus lanes. Some of the roads are not wide enough for any bus lanes at all. In Cambridge the width of the carriageways is the main constraint for introducing bus lanes not level of traffic. Cambridge being almost entirely a single carriageway road network also makes road works very disruptive because they almost always involve "single line working" with temporary traffic lights, and this is a major contribution to congestion.

As a result of the constraints on the road network, surely busways are needed to meet the demand of more buses and faster journey times. Unguided busways are essentially a bus lane anyway. Obviously the nature of the route is subject to disagreement, such as coton orchard, but a suitable route can be found. As the a1303 is very congested at peak times.

We seem to have rambled around the subject (and seem unlikely to agree) for a while, so .... where do we go now?? Free Park and Ride with quadruple car park charges?
2 BPH as a minimum on all rural bus routes?

If there was a more frequent and more reliable service on rural routes, potentially people would use buses more and maybe use park and ride less. And more school buses would reduce the impact of the school run.

 

[camflyer]

I work on the science park. I can tell you that COVID massively changed things. Yes, people working in labs still come in. But a building with labs in will have far fewer employees than one with just desks. And about 50% of buildings are still primarily desks.

So the science park has been hit by 2 things which have reduced occupation: people at deals coming in much less and offices being converted to labs, resulting in a >50% reduction in occupancy anyway.

This resulting in much lower occupancy.

I agree. I also work on the Science Park - even though I ow only go in 1 or 2 days a week. Pre-COVID there was always a long queue of cars to get off the park from 4-5pm. Now there are barely ever more than a handful of cars at the Milton Rd traffic lights.

There is a huge amount of under-occupancy on the Park - some of the larger units have been subdivided and refurbished (firms want smaller but better office spaces) or, as you say, converted in the labs as that is work that cannot be done from home

I commute in from Newmarket and since COVID it has been great. The A14 and Milton Rd are a lot quieter so I can drive door to door in 25-30 mins. For me neither the bus or train alternatives are attractive as both would involve a change in the centre of Cambridge and a walk at each end.

 

[greenline712]

I commute in from Newmarket and since COVID it has been great. The A14 and Milton Rd are a lot quieter so I can drive door to door in 25-30 mins. For me neither the bus or train alternatives are attractive as both would involve a change in the centre of Cambridge and a walk at each end.

And that, right there, is the problem that will never be solved. Before I retired, I worked at Cricklewood Garage. To drive, especially early doors, would take 30 minutes. To travel otherwise (walk-train-train-bus) would take 1h45m . . . going home would be 2 hours, versus 40 minutes by car. You can tell how I commuted . . .

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But I've yet to find an instance that gives the original source and how it is derived. All of those quoting that number have a vested interest.

It tells me that tourism is just about back where it was before the pandemic, with no real growth, a bit like the UK economy as a whole. Pandemic excluded, it is steady state, not growth, and it is growth that is needed.

The city council seem comfortable with the statistic as they employ it. Alternatively, I’ve not seen anything to counter it.

Remember that tourism crashed through the floor. To go from oblivion in 2020 to regain its position by 2023 is fairly phenomenal.

I'm not saying that the old city is a busted flush, though it was very quiet when I visited this morning. What I'm saying is that it is no longer the economic centre of gravity for Cambridge, and transport planning needs to adjust to that.

Things are changing but they’re also changing in the bio-medical world too. Flexibility is key.

So ... given that the Busway is here and is unlikely to be converted to a railway without huge expense; and also given that the the road network in Cambridge is unable to be expanded to accommodate bus priorities ... what might the future hold??
What should the new precept of £11m (I think that's the annual value) for improved public transport be spent on??

We seem to have rambled around the subject (and seem unlikely to agree) for a while, so .... where do we go now?? Free Park and Ride with quadruple car park charges?
2 BPH as a minimum on all rural bus routes?

Praise be! The growth needs to be on fast routes serving both the main traffic objectives, better bus priority, and links into rail. I don’t know if propping up services into the Fens at unsustainable frequencies is appropriate but feeders into Busway hubs “feels” better.

 

[gingerheid]

Clearly the busway wasn't a success in construction. This happens in all sorts of construction contracts and wasn't a result of it being a busway.

In operation the northern busway has been quite successful in terms of usage. Pre COVID it beat post - Northstowe usage targets before Northstowe existed. Other people have mentioned the massive timetable that was to be introduced in April 2020. Even still, the service has held up very well compared to non busway routes in Cambridge; which are having a terrible time. As the Mildenhall line clearly isn't being reopened any time soon I'm sure public transport users along the route would love to see a busway. It couldn't be any less successful in operation than the Newmarket bus services that Stagecoach completely pulled out of!

I'd love to know what exactly they've plead guilty to. It seems to me that the busway is no more dangerous than any other road where pedestrians and cyclists who leave the pavement and end up in front of buses are going to have a bad day. I also don't understand what is supposed to be different and more dangerous about the southern busway's path as against any of the other ones. I assume the offence was something very technical.

 

[Falcon1200]

It seems to me that the busway is no more dangerous than any other road where pedestrians and cyclists who leave the pavement and end up in front of buses are going to have a bad day.

Valid points, and it would be interesting to know how many people are killed on Cambridgeshire's roads, whether the road authority is being prosecuted as a result, and what measures are being taken to make the roads safer.

Some of the contributory issues identified were the speeds involved (buses travelling at 50 mph), width (or lack) of the cycleway/footpath, physical barriers/absence of physical segregation.

But that very same situation occurs on roads across the country, where the vehicles are not guided, and are travelling at, or quite possibly above, the speed limit, which can be 60 or even 70mph!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Valid points, and it would be interesting to know how many people are killed on Cambridgeshire's roads, whether the road authority is being prosecuted as a result, and what measures are being taken to make the roads safer.



But that very same situation occurs on roads across the country, where the vehicles are not guided, and are travelling at, or quite possibly above, the speed limit, which can be 60 or even 70mph!

If there were issues with the design that made it more likely, that might have been the factor.

It is the same on the railway. Fatalities occur, but have you done everything that you could REASONABLY be expected to do to prevent injury?

I’d suggest on the section where two people died, it might be considered they could’ve done more. The one at Fen Drayton - possibly not?

 

[camflyer]

Apart from cost savings I don't see any other reason for not having a small fence or other barrier between the busway and foot/cycle path. Would have been for cheaper to install as part of the original design than to retro fit now.

Yes, people do get injured or killed on normal roads following an encounter with bus but surely we should be making new infrastructure as safe as possible.

 

[Falcon1200]

Yes, people do get injured or killed on normal roads following an encounter with bus but surely we should be making new infrastructure as safe as possible.

But should that mean including expensive additional infrastructure, such as fences between path and carriageway, when such measures are not required elsewhere?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But should that mean including expensive additional infrastructure, such as fences between path and carriageway, when such measures are not required elsewhere?

Depends on risk - probability vs possibility. A load of people milling adjacent to a roadway with 60 mph vehicles might require more physical segregation or other measures than on the more open sections with fewer pedestrians.

 

[weeklycommuter]

As the Mildenhall line clearly isn't being reopened any time soon I'm sure public transport users along the route would love to see a busway. It couldn't be any less successful in operation than the Newmarket bus services that Stagecoach completely pulled out of!

Which places would a bus service on a Cambridge to Mildenhall busway serve?

 

[Magdalia]

I'd love to know what exactly they've plead guilty to. It seems to me that the busway is no more dangerous than any other road where pedestrians and cyclists who leave the pavement and end up in front of buses are going to have a bad day. I also don't understand what is supposed to be different and more dangerous about the southern busway's path as against any of the other ones. I assume the offence was something very technical.

If there were issues with the design that made it more likely, that might have been the factor.

It is the same on the railway. Fatalities occur, but have you done everything that you could REASONABLY be expected to do to prevent injury?

I’d suggest on the section where two people died, it might be considered they could’ve done more. The one at Fen Drayton - possibly not?

The safety issue is a delicate one. This week I've been along the section of busway that had 2 fatalities, both on a bus and cycling. This is between Hills Road and Long Road bridges on the section that can be seen from the train just south of Cambridge station.

I also don't know the legal details, that's between the Health and Safety Executive, the council, and their lawyers. But I can try to set out the long chain of events that are relevant. Some of them are a long time ago and it is difficult to check whether my memory is correct.

The original guided busway proposals were for a 55mph/90kph maximum speed specification. This was part of the case for the busway as an alternative to heavy rail.

At the outset there were no proposals for a cycleway/footpath next to the guideway, only an unsurfaced road for maintenance vehicles.

The busway opened 2 years late. During that period cyclists and pedestrians started to use the busway, both the maintenance road and the guideway itself. With skill and nerve it was possible to cycle on the guideway. I know because I have done it myself, as an experiment.

At some point a decision was made to surface the maintenance road and make it available to cyclists and pedestrians. At the time this was probably regarded as lower risk than the ad hoc use that had grown up during construction, and which was going to be difficult to stop. I can't remember whether surfacing the maintenance road contributed to the delay in opening.

The cycleways/footpaths are not very wide, along the section where the 2 fatalities occurred the width is less than 3 metres. In the early days the level of usage was not high, but grew rapidly, especially on the section where 2 fatalities occurred. This was driven mainly by the huge expansion in employment in the area around the station, and on the biomedical campus. This means that, at peak times, this section has heavy flows of cyclists and pedestrians in both directions. Two big residential developments also contributed to the rise in cycle and pedestrian traffic, at Clay Farm and Trumpington Meadows.

As the traffic on the cycleway/footpath was increasing, the buses continued to run on the guideway at 50mph/80kph, with only a kerb separating the guideway from the cycleway/footpath.

This week's cycle journey was mid morning, but I did have to overtake two pedestrians walking two abreast and someone with a child in a pushchair. Both of these took up about half the width of the cycleway/footpath, meaning that I could only overtake if there was no traffic coming the other way. The increasing use of cargo bikes has created another overtaking hazard.

Before the 2 fatalities on this section of the busway occurred, I had already made my own risk assessment and decided not to use that section of the busway for cycling at busy times. Generally speaking I only use that section of the busway on Sundays, when there are few people going to or from work.

The two major remedial actions that have been taken to manage risk are reducing the speed of the buses and installing a fence to separate the buses from the cyclists and pedestrians. I can't remember if the speed reduction to 30mph/50kph on this section of the busway came after the 2018 fatality or after the 2021 fatality. The northbound guideway, which is adjacent to the cycleway/footpath, was completely closed from January 2023 until April 2024 for the fence to be installed.

Should the council have acted sooner? It is a lot easier to say with hindsight than foresight.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Earlier in this thread, postings were made of other guided busways to use as comparisons, so I was surprised that no mention was made of the Leigh Guided Busway in the Greater Manchester area.

 

[gingerheid]

Which places would a bus service on a Cambridge to Mildenhall busway serve?

Ditton Meadows and Thorpe Way in Cambridge, Lode, Swaffham Prior, Burwell, (Exning, Newmarket) / Fordham, Mildenhall

This week's cycle journey was mid morning, but I did have to overtake two pedestrians walking two abreast and someone with a child in a pushchair. Both of these took up about half the width of the cycleway/footpath, meaning that I could only overtake if there was no traffic coming the other way. The increasing use of cargo bikes has created another overtaking hazard.

Before the 2 fatalities on this section of the busway occurred, I had already made my own risk assessment and decided not to use that section of the busway for cycling at busy times. Generally speaking I only use that section of the busway on Sundays, when there are few people going to or from work.

I just accept that sometimes I'll be cycling along there more slowly than other times.

 

[bspahh]

Ditton Meadows and Thorpe Way in Cambridge, Lode, Swaffham Prior, Burwell, (Exning, Newmarket) / Fordham, Mildenhall

... and not the existing inhabitants. If a busway was built, a lot of new houses would be built as well.

 

[Meerkat]

The two major remedial actions that have been taken to manage risk are reducing the speed of the buses and installing a fence to separate the buses from the cyclists and pedestrians. I can't remember if the speed reduction to 30mph/50kph on this section of the busway came after the 2018 fatality or after the 2021 fatality. The northbound guideway, which is adjacent to the cycleway/footpath, was completely closed from January 2023 until April 2024 for the fence to be installed.

So the busway isnt the problem - it’s the adjacent bike/pedestrian path that is the problem.
reducing the bus speed seems ridiculous if we are trying to get people to use them.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So the busway isnt the problem - it’s the adjacent bike/pedestrian path that is the problem.
reducing the bus speed seems ridiculous if we are trying to get people to use them.

It’s not as simple as that. You have to look at risk and that means in all likelihoods of people using the path. That’s probably why they pleaded guilty as they’d not sufficiently minimised risk.

Even at lower speeds, the Busway performs a valuable role in getting buses moving faster away from congested roads.

 

[Megafuss]

So the busway isnt the problem - it’s the adjacent bike/pedestrian path that is the problem.
reducing the bus speed seems ridiculous if we are trying to get people to use them.

The section of road where the buses join the track and cyclist need to "cross" on to the path has been an accident waiting to happen for years

A minority of cyclists do seem treat the guideway path like the M1 with the speed they use and then get grumpy when they come across walkers. It used to be a nice walk down to Trumpington, but it gets ruined by the constant ringing of cycle bells.