Cambridge guided busway

[Buttsy]

Alloa-Kincardine only included one station. Did the £60 million include the bridges that replaced level crossings?

If it had been reopened as heavy rail, the St Ives brnach would have wanted quite a few stations. At the very least:
Chesterton Junction (where the new station, about £25 million I think, is going)
Histon
Northstowe (passive provision?)
Longstanton
Swavesy
St Ives

You'd also still need to build a new viaduct over the Ouse (one of the biggest costs of the busway), you'd also need to justify the level crossing over Milton Road. yes, there used to be one there, but the road has got much, much busier since.

I was just using the costs of 2 schemes that were going on around 2008 to give an idea of costs at that time. Based on the cost of Airdrie - Bathgate, I would have guesstimated that the cost of an electried single track with loop would have come out at around the £100-110m mark, roughly what was paid for the busway (not what it actually cost). I was not attempting to justify the £50m price tag from CASTIRON.

As the viaduct was built for the busway, I doubt it would have not been significantly more expensive for a rail viaduct. Again, I have no access to figures, I'm solely basing my thinking on costs of re-instatement of other lines at that time. I am unable to comment on Milton Road as I don't know the area or the actual cost of re-instating a bridge.

 

[yorksrob]

What number of long distance passengers are there likely to be from St Ives?

The main destinations that the busway serves are the Science Park, central Cambridge, Cambridge Train Station and the Hospital.

The same number that any reasonably sized settlement is likely to generate. In all likelihood, London would probably be a significant destination.

For all of the suggestions about diverting Cambridge - Birmingham trains via St Ives (etc) on this thread, the bread and butter destinations are the ones that the Busway serves.

The reason that the busway stops in more places is because it has a more stops than a train would do - i.e. its useful to a broader spectrum. How many stops would there be on a railway line from St Ives to Cambridge?

Yes, but while that's all well and good for local stops, it will be a nuisence for anyone travalling further afield. People don't want to be stopping every two minutes into a medium distance journey and as I've said before, Cambridge already had buses going into the centre of town.

What realistic chance was there of direct trains from St Ives to London though?

Given existing local service patterns and rolling stock provision, extending existing London trains seems the more effective use of resources.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no particular reason that a busway has to be an all stops affair though.
You could path a limited stop service if you really wanted to.

10bph still implies that the express journey could be six minutes faster than the previous one even without any overtaking opportunities at all.
Based on comparable railway projects you could probably have a 'four lane' busway for significant stretches of the route without causing major increases in costs.

 

[Deerfold]

The same number that any reasonably sized settlement is likely to generate. In all likelihood, London would probably be a significant destination.

When I've caught it (on a Saturday) about 75% of the people on the bus got off at one of the Central Cambridge stops with the rest split between the station, hospital and a handful at the Park and Ride (though most who disembarked at the Park and Ride had boarded in the centre or at the station).

Yes, but while that's all well and good for local stops, it will be a nuisence for anyone travalling further afield. People don't want to be stopping every two minutes into a medium distance journey and as I've said before, Cambridge already had buses going into the centre of town.

It had 4 an hour - and in my experience it wasn't uncommon to hit a half-hour delay on the way in. It now has 9 an hour with far higher reliability and lower journey times, combined with new direct access to the Science Park - if you were going there you could easily save an hour a day on the return trip compared with the previous option of going into Cambridge and going out again.

 

[jopsuk]

Quick note- the Busway services are limited stop within the city.

 

[yorksrob]

It had 4 an hour - and in my experience it wasn't uncommon to hit a half-hour delay on the way in. It now has 9 an hour with far higher reliability and lower journey times, combined with new direct access to the Science Park - if you were going there you could easily save an hour a day on the return trip compared with the previous option of going into Cambridge and going out again.

Out of interest, what sort of time does it take to get across Cambridge to the station using it now ? Certainly half an hour was starting from a low point, however, I'm guessing it's still a lot slower than a direct train would be. The half hour delays suggest that Cambridge has something of a traffic problem, and perhaps this might have been a justification for traffic measures in the City centre, but I'm not convinced it is a good enough reason to have deprived St Ives of it's rail link.

 

[gingerheid]

So, notwithstanding the collosal price (snip) is this project considered to be succesful?

Has it improved ridership and punctuality of the bus services it supports?

It is. But I will always wonder what would have happened if they'd just put more than double the number of nice new buses on the ordinary roads and given them lots of publicity, as to me those are the improvements.

The journey isn't that more reliable as there are still extensive road sections and the most congested roads are still used.

Very few journey times have actually improved, and for the majority of those it is new service patterns rather than the guideway that made the difference. The initial Huntingdon journey time was longer than in Hunts Bus days, and it was only shortened again when the route in St Ives was made more direct.

 

[CockneySparrow]

£50m would get you from central Cambridge to the outskirts, that figure is miles and miles out.

where do these types of figures come from, just pulled this up about reopening Soham station and the figure of £6m is being banded around

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Ely/Bid-to-reopen-rail-station-70-years-after-explosion-28112012.htm

A few bricks and paving slabs costing that much is unreal, we all know the building of two platforms even allowing for two small buildings total would cost £500k max, we allow £100k for the car park to be tarmaced over and a very generous £400k for NR to do any adjustments to make trains stop there like signals etc and a bridge over the track, so where does the remaining £5m go, tells me these figures that NR etc that come up with are 6 times the real cost

I also believe it cost £37k for a report on something we all know Soham needs a station

Another note it makes you wonder where these heritage lines have got that kind of money from to rebuild railway lines, I know heritage lines dont pay the labour but they do buy the land so guess it would be near enough an even keel if NR already owned the land for such projects

 

[HSTEd]

Its more than that, the platform has to be built to have an escape cavity, has to maintain its structure despite possible sag in the platforms (since if they sag the wrong way they will intrude into the loading gauge box and bad things happen) and it has to be constructed next to an active railway with line safety qualifications for all involved.

And then you have to pay for the costs incurred by other operators for the line possesion required.

Building a station on a new line that hasn't opened yet would be far cheaper.

 

[181]

There actually used to be a bridge. Basically, Milton Road was narrower and the road used to dive under the railway. When Milton Road was expanded and the railway closed, the bridge was demolished and the road was built on a new bridge over where the road used to go. You can see it when you drive over it or when you cycle from the business park. The cycle lane goes pretty much where the road used to.

Although I'm not familiar with that part of Cambridge, I'm confident that there was always a level crossing on Milton Road. It's shown on the 1950s OS map that you can see here (and on older and newer maps that I have on my shelf), and the disused crossing lasted long enough that it still appears in the 'satellite' view on Google Maps (the Streetview picture is more up to date).

Does anyone know the history of that underpass carrying the cycle path? I'm guessing that it may have been provided for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the railway when the gates were shut, but were the road or railway ever busy enough to need this?

 

[WatcherZero]

Platforms do indeed have some silly construction cost thats like £1000 per square metre.

The annex in this file has costings Halcrow gave for structural elements, gives you an idea how station construction costs mount up.

http://www.transportforleigh.org.uk/TFL/Press_files/Press_Pack_28_Mar_2013.pdf

 

[edwin_m]

Out of interest, what sort of time does it take to get across Cambridge to the station using it now ? Certainly half an hour was starting from a low point, however, I'm guessing it's still a lot slower than a direct train would be. The half hour delays suggest that Cambridge has something of a traffic problem, and perhaps this might have been a justification for traffic measures in the City centre, but I'm not convinced it is a good enough reason to have deprived St Ives of it's rail link.

Will the busway routes interchange with the new Science Park station? Even if they don't I suspect a short walk to that station would be better for many interchaning passengers than chancing the bus via Hill Road etc.

 

[tadhatter]

Seems like I've slightly misunderstood the supposed advantages of (mis)guided busways then in all fairness. However, given that they are not ever meant to be driverless then I really don't see the claimed advantages over say a dedicated bus lane. Some of the claimed advantages (such as requiring less distance between "tracks") are somewhat dubious to say the least!

 

[yorksrob]

Will the busway routes interchange with the new Science Park station? Even if they don't I suspect a short walk to that station would be better for many interchaning passengers than chancing the bus via Hill Road etc.

From the map, the existing railway seems quite a long way from the science park and the busway.

 

[transmanche]

Some of the claimed advantages (such as requiring less distance between "tracks") are somewhat dubious to say the least!

You do realise that its a guided busway don't you? Not just a bus lane. The driver doesn't have to steer as the buses are guided, so it means that the buses can travel at a higher speed than they might otherwise do on the public highway, due to the absence of other traffic.

And being able to have tracks closer together than would be possible on a normal road isn't dubious at all. Just look at railway tracks: trains can pass each other at 125mph (250mph closing speed) in complete safety because the rails keep them in place. The same goes for buses on the busway at 55mph (110mph closing speed).

 

[HSTEd]

Bus lanes don't have concrete barriers to prevent people driving or parking in them.

 

[edwin_m]

You do realise that its a guided busway don't you? Not just a bus lane. The driver doesn't have to steer as the buses are guided, so it means that the buses can travel at a higher speed than they might otherwise do on the public highway, due to the absence of other traffic.

And being able to have tracks closer together than would be possible on a normal road isn't dubious at all. Just look at railway tracks: trains can pass each other at 125mph (250mph closing speed) in complete safety because the rails keep them in place. The same goes for buses on the busway at 55mph (110mph closing speed).

The buses still have to be going at a safe speed to be able to stop short of any obstruction ahead, such as a pedestrian, something left by vandals or even another bus that has stopped. If the busway had been laid as a normal road, but for buses only, then the speeds attained would be exactly the same and perhaps faster on crossings of other roads where the bus has to slow down to re-engage with the guideway. And not having to steer isn't a significant benefit - the driver isn't paid any less for the reduced workload!

The space saving is an important benefit on former railways where over and underbridges would be too narrow for two normal traffic lanes but can accommodate two guideways. Whether this is a reason to lay guideway over the whole route I'm not so sure, since the rest of it could be widened to normal road with quite easily. Perhaps the slowing down to engage with guideway is a factor here too.

A guideway has the definite advantage of being self-enforcing. It is physically impossible for other vehicles to use it. When someone tries, they get stuck and there is some delay to buses while the vehicle is retrieved. But they are unlikely to try it again, unlike some unguided busways and bus plugs where there is enough illegal traffic to delay the buses. This feature may also help with getting the guideway accepted by neighbours, as if an unguided busway is built people might be concerned that other traffic will use it illegally or even that it might eventually be converted into a normal road.

 

[HSTEd]

I believe there are also benefits in that since you know precisely what part of the road surface is going to be used by the vehicle's tyres every time you can reinforce that section of the road surface, in this case by using surprisingly hefty concrete beams such that the ride quality is improved over a regular Tarmac surface.

 

[OxtedL]

From the map, the existing railway seems quite a long way from the science park and the busway.

I believe the plan is to extend the busway to the station, as reported in this recent article.

Out of interest, what sort of time does it take to get across Cambridge to the station using it now ?

As the busway website can tell you, times from St Ives (bus station) to Cambridge rail station are roughly 45 minutes - longer from the rest of St Ives. When Science Park station opens it I reckon it could see journey times of maybe 25 minutes to St Ives.

It's difficult to know what a train would have done, but 16 minutes Ely to Cambridge is maybe a good indicator.

The problem here is we're trying to compare two very different things. The rail link would have served longer distance travel, certainly focussed on London, but the bus can more intensively serve the latent demand for travel to Cambridge (which has something of a reputation for horrific parking) from its surrounding area.

When you look at how close St Ives is to Huntingdon, and consider that it's not the biggest town in the area, I'm unconvinced that the rail network would have got round to adding it back for quite a long time - it just wasn't and isn't a priority. I don't know how we'd propose serving it, but since Cambridge already has north and south links to the ECML, and extending from St Ives to Huntingdon and plumbing it into the ECML would be hideously expensive, I can't see those in charge advocating a through service.

It'd just be another branch to serve north of Cambridge - the kind of line that would be seen as well down the priority list, and perhaps even feeling operationally awkward. Not that I don't share your utter horror at the town of St Ives not having a rail station, but looking from a high level I feel confident the busway has made positive use of the route and also national transport funding, something that a rail line could only do weakly.

 

[transmanche]

The buses still have to be going at a safe speed to be able to stop short of any obstruction ahead, such as a pedestrian, something left by vandals or even another bus that has stopped. If the busway had been laid as a normal road, but for buses only, then the speeds attained would be exactly the same and perhaps faster on crossings of other roads where the bus has to slow down to re-engage with the guideway. And not having to steer isn't a significant benefit - the driver isn't paid any less for the reduced workload!

Without having to worry about the steering, it means the driver can devote their full concentration on looking out for obstructions whilst operating at the 55mph speed limit. The very nature of the busway means that buses are less likely to encounter a pedestrian than on a normal road.

I believe the speed limit for 'level crossings' is 30mph, so I assume that the guidance equipment is designed to re-engage at a reasonable speed. In any event, 'level crossings' are often going to be the location of bus stops anyway.

 

[edwin_m]

Without having to worry about the steering, it means the driver can devote their full concentration on looking out for obstructions whilst operating at the 55mph speed limit.

That arguable safety benefit is counteracted by the disbenefit that if something/someone is seen the driver has no opportunity of swerving to avoid.

The very nature of the busway means that buses are less likely to encounter a pedestrian than on a normal road.

That in itself can be dangerous, if bus drivers start to expect that nobody will be there. And unlikely to be much different from the situation if the busway had been built without guidance, as a 55mph-standard interurban road on the same route.

Was any investigation ever published on the tail-end collision between two buses that happened on the guideway a year or two back?

 

[yorksrob]

The problem here is we're trying to compare two very different things. The rail link would have served longer distance travel, certainly focussed on London, but the bus can more intensively serve the latent demand for travel to Cambridge (which has something of a reputation for horrific parking) from its surrounding area.

Well, in a way, that's precisely what I've been saying. The busway has improved an existing transport mode a bit, but at the same time, negated all possibility of the sort of step-change improvement that could have been provided by reopening the railway. Particularly as Gingerheid mentions, these services probably could have been improved to an extent anyway by traffic measures in Cambridge and increased bus frequencies.

When you look at how close St Ives is to Huntingdon, and consider that it's not the biggest town in the area, I'm unconvinced that the rail network would have got round to adding it back for quite a long time - it just wasn't and isn't a priority. I don't know how we'd propose serving it, but since Cambridge already has north and south links to the ECML, and extending from St Ives to Huntingdon and plumbing it into the ECML would be hideously expensive, I can't see those in charge advocating a through service.

The fact remains that the two existing routes (this and Dunstable) would have been by far the easiest routes to reopen in the Country. Let's not forget that the busway decision had very little to do with a rational idea of transport planning and everything to do with Alistair Darling's time as transport minister and the impression that the Government of the time had of them being very expensive and carting around "fresh air". The fact that it may have been low down on the list of priorities has a lot to do with the skewed attitude towards railway reopenings exhibited in England over the last fifteen years as compared to our Celtic neighbours.

It'd just be another branch to serve north of Cambridge - the kind of line that would be seen as well down the priority list, and perhaps even feeling operationally awkward. Not that I don't share your utter horror at the town of St Ives not having a rail station, but looking from a high level I feel confident the busway has made positive use of the route and also national transport funding, something that a rail line could only do weakly.

Depends. As I said before, Cambridge already has services terminating from London. Operationally it would have been easier than for most projects to extend some of these.

 

[joeykins82]

The bit that irks me is having to pay twice; I like the PlusBus scheme because it means that the local connecting leg is heavily subsidised compared to the usually eye-watering bus fare for non-London services. I think that through ticketing to St Ives, Dunstable and anywhere else that ends up with a guided busway scheme would be hugely beneficial.

 

[transmanche]

That arguable safety benefit is counteracted by the disbenefit that if something/someone is seen the driver has no opportunity of swerving to avoid.

So exactly the same situation as a train or a tram.

That in itself can be dangerous, if bus drivers start to expect that nobody will be there.

Perhaps I should have said the "busway's route"; i.e.being away from existing roads. But again it's the same situation as a train or a tram.

And unlikely to be much different from the situation if the busway had been built without guidance, as a 55mph-standard interurban road on the same route.

But such a road would have to be wider than the busway - because (as already discussed) the guidance system means that vehicles can operate at high speed in safety even on a narrow alignment.

 

[edwin_m]

So exactly the same situation as a train or a tram.

The same as a tram but not as a train. Trains are not expected to stop short of an obstruction on sight, and having seen main proceed signal aspects a train driver is entitled to expect that the line is unobstructed as far as the authority given by that aspect.

But such a road would have to be wider than the busway - because (as already discussed) the guidance system means that vehicles can operate at high speed in safety even on a narrow alignment.

Yes, I agree with that as I did previously. My point is that in open country, away from structures etc, there is probably no particular difficulty with making the alignment a bit wider to accommodate an unguided busway (= a normal road).

 

[transmanche]

The same as a tram but not as a train. Trains are not expected to stop short of an obstruction on sight, and having seen main proceed signal aspects a train driver is entitled to expect that the line is unobstructed as far as the authority given by that aspect.

So then you're suggesting it's safer than a train?

 

[jopsuk]

Yes, I agree with that as I did previously. My point is that in open country, away from structures etc, there is probably no particular difficulty with making the alignment a bit wider to accommodate an unguided busway (= a normal road).

The space has been used to very good effect by building a wide foot/cycle/bridleway alongside- this is very busy, with commuting cyclists and with leisure users of all types. Through the villages this would not have been possible with a busway built as a "normal road".

 

[edwin_m]

So then you're suggesting it's safer than a train?

In that respect yes. If you stand on a railway then you are likely to be killed by a train that can't stop in time. If you stand on a tramway or a guided busway then the tram or bus will be able to stop before it reaches you. Don't try this at home folks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The space has been used to very good effect by building a wide foot/cycle/bridleway alongside- this is very busy, with commuting cyclists and with leisure users of all types. Through the villages this would not have been possible with a busway built as a "normal road".

That's another reason for guided instead of unguided busway then, illustrating another kind of area where space is limited.

 

[HSTEd]

Course, these days with GPS you might be able to work out some sort of automatic stop system but I doubt its really worth it.

Buses have such shorter stopping distances than trains that on-sight is a reasonable way to do it.

Also I would imagine a busway might even be cheaper than a normal road, especially in terms of life cycle cost (including maintenance).

 

[gingerheid]

New CGB timetable is on Traveline with an extra 7 buses arriving in Cambridge during rush hour.

I don't know why it works, but it seems to.

Of note, however, is that some journey times have also been extended, making them again longer than in pre-Busway days even despite changes to more direct routes on the unguided sections.