The Misguided Bus A Disastrous Blunder.

You may be aware of the council's plans for rapid transit in
Cambridge. You are
probably under the impression it will be new modern slick tram like
vehicles
that will somehow glide through the city's cramped and crowded
streets, like a
tram, but cost hardly anything. Infact what the council proposes will
be
devastating. Not only will it destroy any chance of re-opening the St
Ives
railway, which the buses will us as their Northerly route, it will
cause yet
more congestion in the beleaguered city centre.

Gone are the plans for an articulated tram like bus, being replaced
with a
normal bus, that burns petrol, and has a little guidance wheel, which
will be
used on the guided sections. The new discount bus, offers nothing that
a regular
bus can’t, it is a waste of investment. No where else in the
world are
guided buses being embraced, infact to the contrary, in places where
the mistake
was made to invest in them, they are being ripped up. In Ottawa Canada
the
guided bus scheme cost a staggering 400% more than was predicted, with
pathetic
usage levels, the city is looking at replacing their White Elephant of
a
transport system with normal buses. In Nancy in France the bus has a
maximum
speed of only 40km, not very competitive. In Essen, Germany the guided
bus was a
failure and is being ripped up. In Adelaide in Australia, it is deemed
uncompetative, with the authorities they’re looking at more tram
routes,
instead.

The major problem is that the guided sections of guided bus ways (the
faster
bits) are too cumbersome to be laid on normal streets, unlike tram
tracks. The
guided sections, which amount to unsightly concrete troughs are in the
country
only. In the Cambridge proposal the troughs will replace rails on the
disused St
Ives Railway, and a small section towards Trumpington. The troughs
will cover
23km of the proposed 40km system, while the remaining 17km, will run
on normal
roads. There are many problems arising here. The guided bus will
basically just
be a normal bus on a road in the city centre, running down Histon and
Milton
Roads via Mitchams Corner through the city to the Station. Where is
the space to
come from? How many more bus lanes and rising bollards will be needed?
How many
other road users, including cyclists will suffer? And all to provide
the city
with what we already have, a lot of buses and congestion.....

The plan is said to cost £77 million, but won’t really benefit
Cambridge
residents. The guided trough sections are outside the city centre,
with a bias
towards funnelling people in from local towns (and planned towns) to
the centre,
rather than accommodating the needs of residents of Cambridge’s
many
suburbs: East, South and West of the centre. The St Ives railway,
could be
re-opened to trains, all the way to Huntingdon, with about as much
investment as
the guided busway, and offer the all too important option to carry
freight.
Relieving local roads, especially the A14. The CHUMMS study of the
congested A14
suggested there should be a rapid transport option along the old line,
and an
opportunity to carry fright along it. How will a bus manage that? If
the line
was opened to trains again, there could be through running routes from
Cambridge
to Oxford and beyond, freight could be taken anywhere. But this wont
be possible
if the guidance troughs cover the rails for good. There is no reason
why trams
and trains can't share the same track; it happens a lot in Europe
especially
Germany.

The best solution would to run a tram into the city centre from three
locations
in the city. The trams could leave the St Ives railway at Histon Road,
Milton
Road and finally Barnwell Train Bridge. In the last case the trams
would need to
run along a small section of the main line 'till Barnwell Bridge (the
Site of
the old Barnwell Junction Station), and then run along the rather wide
Newmarket
Road to the city centre. The guided bus plan would not cater for East
Cambridge
at all.
In the City centre trams would run in a tunnel, just below the street
(no way
as deep as a tube, and lots cheaper) from Maids Causeway to where the
Pizza hut
is on Regent street, a distance of say 0.5km. There would be an
underground stop
for the Grafton Centre, and Drummer Street. Other public transport
could also
use the tunnel, which would be tracked and tarmaced. The City Centre
bus
congestion would become a thing of the past. The proposed guided bus
would just
add to it.

There are mature plans to build a train station at Chesterton, on the
main
line, where the St Ives line leaves to head NorthWest. There are no
plans to
link the guided bus with the new station , the alternative tram /
train idea
would offer trams and trains an interchange here. There are also plans
for
thousands of new homes on the Chesterton siding site, and the sewage
works, near
to the proposed Chesterton Station, it is very short sited not to want
the
guided bus to connect here, possibly because these new houses wont be
built be
any member of the consortium promoting the bus.

In Leeds only 2% of car drivers chose to take a guided bus introduced
there,
conversely in Manchester 26% of drivers have left to use the new Tram,
in areas
it serves. The guided bus sounds like a disaster, that is why the
Council have
gone out of their way to gloss it up, and to present favourable
projected usage
figures supporting it. The Guided bus is being proposed by Cambridge
City
Council, Cambridge County Council and Gallager Estates, the company
that hopes
to build a 6,000 home new town along the proposed route between
Oakington and
Longstantion. It is in their interests to make it look irresistible.
They claim
there will a capacity of 120 people per bus, there will be a bus every
10
minutes, that is 720 people an hour, using the network. Now the pro-
bus
propaganda claims that 18,000 people will use the guided bus every
day. Even if
every bus was brimming full, every time (which of course it wont be)
between 6am
and midnight, that is only just under 13,000 passengers, something is
a bit
fishy here. Where are all the people going to come from?

The project has reached the initial consultation stage, with
questionnaires sent
out to residents along the proposed routes. A questionnaire is
remarkable
biased, it asks would you support "a high quality public transport
system" along
the St Ives railway? That is very dodgy, most people would respond
'yes,' which
the developers will see as a vote for the guided bus, but it doesn't
ask that. A
"public transport system" could be anything, a bus, tram, boat or
chair lift,
the authors are being deliberately obtuse to make the responses favour
the
guided bus, as if it were a for-gone-conclusion, and the consultation
was just
fudging a legal requirement, an obstacle to be avoided. The developers
have
started a serious of propaganda exercises to persuade residents along
the route
that the guided bus is a good idea. The recent news paper article
declaring the
response to the scheme as very positive is also very misleading. The
scheme
effects 122,000 people, of which only 2.7% have bothered to go to see
the
exhibitions, hardly massive support. Infact if you read an Internet
search for
letters posted to the press 85% are against the scheme, favouring
rail. Everyone
wants a solution; they just don't want the guided bus.

In the long run guided buses are much more expensive to maintain than
trams.
In Adelaide the tram route there costs a fraction of the guided bus
way, and is
twice it's length. The initial cost of laying the street running tram
lines and
the tunnel, would be a lot more expensive than the bus idea, but far
more cost
effective in the long run. The vehicles would last longer and require
less
maintenance. The tram rails would last longer than the guidance
troughs, which
are prone to leaf clogging in country areas. The concrete troughs are
prone to
water and frost damage, the long Fen winters would be less cruel to a
railway
cum tramway. The estimated cost of a street running tramway, based on
the
proposed Purley to Streatham Tramlink extension in London is £6.9 per
km, a
worthy investment. A land tax has been proposed along the tram route,
to cover
cost. The tax will be levied on businesses rather than homes. In
Sheffield
Manchester and London, all shops and businesses along tram routes have
increased
business. In New Addington in London, where trams went for the first
time five
years ago, property values have rocketed. The tax would be affordable,
and the
benefits great. Cambridge could fund the additional tram costs in this
way, and
then just sit back and reap the benefits.

The City running sections of the busway will rely on bus lanes, which
are costly
and inefficient when it comes to space usage. How often have you been
in a
traffic jam, next to an empty bus lane? In Sheffield where trams have
been
running for almost 10 years, to great success, cars and trams share
the roads
very efficiently, the tram has priority, but the car is not forgotten.
How will
the economy of this city suffer, under a non-stop gridlock, with
relatively
empty bus lanes?

Many eminent bodies have criticised the discussion to go guided. The
national
transport summit in 2001 said of the CHUMMS recommendation "They did
not look
adequately at the regional and national transport structure", backing
up how the
loss of the St Ives railway, to buses would effect freight movement,
pushing
more goods onto the roads. Leeds council said of their busway "
Relocation of
transport space in favour of a guided busway represents a loss of
space for
freight and other traffic" Councillor Johnston in Cambridge has cited
the Leeds
busway as a success. It isn't comparable to the Cambridge scheme;
firstly it is
a mere 6km in length and doesn't enter the city centre. Guess what
Leeds has
opted for in their City Centre? TRAMS.

There is a definite case to re-open the St Ives railway to trains, all
the way
to Huntingdon, and beyond. And running trams from say Swavesey along
the same
route to the city centre and then to Addenbrooks and Trumpington.

Plans to just
revive the railway, how ever well intentioned, do not cater for
Cambridge
residents on the hole, and would still require a bus to take travels
into the
city centre.

Unless 'Cast Iron' the group backing the only rail idea (opening
between swavesley and the science park)can include a railed connection
to the city centre, the guided bus will win.....

The 'cast iron' proposals are romantic, but will fail unless they
include the tram idea.

they will simple waste their 100,000 donated on a daft unworkable
scheme that will rely on volunteers and buckled old track... Compared
to their half baked ideas the guided bus looks more attractive, and we
can't have that...

The cast Iron proposals will do more harm than good.
Who wants more buses in cambridge, because the cast iron proposals
will rely heavily on these 'feeder' buses......

Stop thinking bus....... think train and tram...


The guided bus will run off petrol, not electricity like a tram, the
guided bus
will pollute, the tram wont. Frankly Cambridge should have a showpiece
transport
system, that shouts out success, how would a bus with a little wheel
coming out
the side do that? A slick tram would. What chance is there of ever
opening up
the Oxford to Cambridge railway again, if the rails on the St Ives
line are
replaced by concrete troughs?

Finally: 28% of Cambridge residents cycle to work. Bikes could be
carried from
further afield by train and tram, have you every tried to get a bike
onto a bus?

Cambridge had a three-line horse drawn tram network between 1880 and
1914; it
wasn't ever electrified and went bust. This time lets get it right.
Trams and
trains are the answer, not the guided bus the council, and their
developer
chums are trying to sell to us. TRAMS ARE TOPS.

Matthew Anghi wrote:
The Misguided Bus A Disastrous Blunder.

You may be aware of the council's plans for rapid transit in
Cambridge.

Yes, we are. Clive Feather told us (uk.transport.london) about it last
month, rather more concisely than you have. This is off-topic for
uk.transport.london.
FU set.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)