'Side-Step Congestion' / Bus priority systems.

Bus Gates.

Sometimes also known as bus only links, bus gates are typically short sections of road which have been designated for use by buses only. In many ways a bus gate could be seen as little more than a very short bus lane or bus-only roadway, both of which usually consist of an ordinary section of road on which a Traffic Regulation Order is in place restricting access to just buses.

Enforcement of a bus gate can be by means of simple road painting and / or signage, perhaps in conjunction with bus-activated traffic signals, however because violation is common and very easy (even with CCTV surveillance to catch the offenders) so frequently bus gates will include some sort of physical obstruction designed to make it nigh-on impossible for unauthorised vehicles to pass through. One of these solutions involved the use of a rising bollard, as seen below. The approach of the bus should be automatically detected and the bollard lowers, rising again after the bus has passed.

Sometimes unauthorised vehicles which try to pass through a bus gate will face damage, for instance trying to follow a bus past a rising bollard may see the bollard rising and striking the underside of the offending vehicle, and even partially lifting it off the ground. Of course road users who obey the rules do not face such issues - although sometimes new traffic management schemes which result in previously open roads being fitted with bus gates (and everyone else forced to follow an alternative routing that is inconvenient) so infuriate other road users who have been travelling that way for many decades that they will be very tempted to try and force their way past the bus gate. One location where this type of scenario applies is in the Hillsborough area of Sheffield, where combined bus and tram gates are credited with significantly reducing delays to the public transport but local residents complain means that they can drive within sight of their homes and are then forced to follow a circuitous routing of up to a mile before they can actually access their streets.

Bus Lanes.

The most well known form of bus priority is the bus lane, which is a traffic lane that for all or part of the day is subject to a Traffic Regulation Order which restricts it to buses only.

In Britain the law says that any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (plus the driver) can use a bus lane, unless the word 'local' is included with the bus 'pictogram' on the bus lane road signs, in which case only vehicles providing a local bus service can use it.

'With flow' bus lanes are for buses travelling in the same direction as the general traffic, 'contra-flow' bus lanes allow buses to travel in the opposite direction. The example pictured here comes from Piccadilly, in Central London, and it lets buses side-step the lengthy one-way system that the general traffic has to follow.

Usually bus lanes are located along the inside (kerbside) lane of the road as this is convenient for passengers at kerbside bus stops. However these bus lanes are often blocked by parked vehicles forcing the buses to divert to the next lane - a process which frequently causes delays to buses and other road users alike. As a contrast because they cannot switch lanes trams usually use the road centre as this keeps the kerb free, for instance for vans delivering goods.

There is no reason why bus lanes cannot be located down the middle of the road too although for safety reasons bus stops would then need to be equipped with island loading platforms as otherwise boarding & alighting the bus would require the passengers to walk out into the path of moving traffic (a potential safety hazard which sometimes happens on older tram systems, although new tram systems always ensure that a safer solution is found).

The principle constraint to central bus lanes and road-centre bus stops with island loading platforms is that many roads are just not wide enough! Whilst it could be possible to widen the roads by demolishing buildings and / or narrowing the footpaths these options would probably result in a public outcry of opposition.

The example shown here from Geneva, Switzerland, is from a road where the kerb lane is sometimes used by a street market, although on other days it is available for on-street parking. This is a two-way road with the other direction's traffic flow only having the use of one lane - not seen in this image is a delivery van which to avoid blocking that lane had parked partially on the footpath.

The other example comes from Krakow in Poland and it shows a two-way tramway where one direction's tracks have been paved to enable buses share the right of way. The sharing of tram rights of way is a simple solution - adding value to the land (roadspace) invested for the trams without negatively impinging on the other road users. Of course this is only a viable proposition in cities which actually have tramway systems!

Bus lanes as part of BRT (bus rapid transit) systems.

Having seen how the creation of congestion-free transport corridors is such an essential element in the success of light rail many cities globally have been looking at copying this as part of new BRT systems. In so far as busways are cheaper alternative to install than trams / light rail (for instance: the roadway will not need digging up and rails installing) then this is quite understandable, and for many routes - where passenger flows will not be sufficient to support the steel wheeled transports - this can be a very sensible option.

However it is most unfortunate that by choosing to ignore another of the passenger attracting features of light rail the transport operators are quite literally choosing for their system to fail environmentally. Only with trolleybuses can buses achieve the same environmental advantages as the light rail, thereby maximising the benefits of the transport corridor.

It it is known that there are people who simply choose to avoid motorbuses, not just for environmental reasons but also because the travelling environment (noise, vibration, smells) are usually less than favourable. So simply painting a few lines on a road surface and calling it a bus lane is just not enough if transport operators are serious about maximising the benefits / user attractiveness of their system.

It also helps when there are roads wide enough to create bus only lanes without creating urban gridlock - for many British cities this too is a challenge to be overcome. In Europe the creation of such transport rights of way are often coupled with other changes to road layouts to increase traffic capacity on alternative routes.

The examples from Rome, Italy, shows a roadway where a raised kerb physically segregates one lane for use by buses (and taxis). Note that this is a triple-carriageway road with parking allowed on the outer two carriageways only - although often vehicles also park on the intermediate footpaths too.

A variant of this used in other Italian cities (eg: Milan) sees the general traffic using wider outer carriageways and the public transport using the centre carriageway, which is two lanes wide. (not illustrated)

There is more on bus lanes and illegal parking on a dedicated Parking page whilst island loading platforms are looked at on the Stops and Stations page.

When choosing bus priority options
Are bus lanes always the best option?

This might seem a bizarre question, but in reality whilst most transport planners would say that the answer is a "no-brainer" the reality is often something else.

In June 2006, and after local elections, some local councils in London announced plans to remove a few bus lanes which in their views were not actually of benefit. This led to a lively discussion on an Internet-based forum where some of the members are bus drivers and / or otherwise involved in London's buses professionally. Whilst is not possible to copy exact words (to avoid breaches of copyright) it is possible to report on what was said.

Several people commentated on the (now former) bus lane on Chiswick Bridge over the River Thames in West London. This bus lane effectively reduced the roadway (for the general traffic) from two lanes down to one lane and was installed even though two busy roads fed into it. By closing this bus lane the traffic delays were so reduced that the bus time tables had to be re-written with as much as 10 minutes running time removed!

Another specific bus lane which was mentioned is eastbound at Catford Town Hall, which is a very busy inner city location bisected by London's South Circular Road (SCR). For those readers who are fortunate enough not to know the SCR this grandiose sounding title has been bestowed upon a hotch-potch of unplanned local (and often residential) roads, almost all of which are (at best) no more than single carriageway / two lanes per direction. Several bus drivers were "very keen" to see this 50 yard bus lane removed because by forcing two lanes of traffic to merge into one lane the traffic delays further back were "simply horrendous", often adding 30 minutes to journeys (a time period which was emphasised as being correct and not a typo!)

One bus driver talked of knowing quite a few bus lanes along the routes he drives which do not cause any kind of problem, but because traffic congestion at these locations is very rare so they do not serve any useful purposes either!

There was a general consensus that the primary "problem" with bus lanes which can and does justify their removal is that whilst the buses might be given a clear run over a certain section of road the delays to the other traffic (which has now been denied roadspace) are often of such severity that any benefits the buses might expect to gain are very seriously compromised by the very significant delays the buses experience before reaching the bus lane. Sometimes the best way to help buses travel without delay would be to help keep ALL the traffic flowing more freely - technically this is what local councils are supposed to be doing (as per their legal obligations) however the impression gained is somewhat different. The proliferation of traffic signals, the lack of ability to influence those signals favourably and road space reallocation (away from any form of road traffic) are all issues which harm bus transport.

Perhaps the one comment which speaks volumes suggested that the problem is that certain people get gold stars for the number of miles of bus lane they introduce, rather than for the amount of time saving for buses they manage to generate.

Reading these comments begs the two questions:-
[affirmative responses appreciated]

1. Should bus drivers be consulted when bus lanes are planned & implemented?
2. Since they are the people who are "on the front line" and therefore most experienced with respect to traffic congestion "hot-spots", possible solutions and the effectiveness - or otherwise - of any bus lanes, should their views be accorded even greater importance & respect than frequently politically motivated desk-bound transport planners & politicians?

For some bus lanes the theme is one of a general priority lane for use by commercial vehicles - with a specific aim of helping them avoid traffic congestion as often their working day is 'time specific' whilst it is assumed that the same does not apply to people travelling by private car.

Many people involved in the haulage and distribution industries would applaud this concept, although business people whose employment requires them to carry goods (such as trade samples) so they too must travel by car (and often also have timed appointments to keep) may wish that comparable arrangements could be made for them too.

---

Bus Lane Operating Hours
rush hours? all day? part day? weekends too? 24 hour?

Because bus lanes (on shared use roads) are often a compromise between the needs of different road users so often the hours of bus lane operation will vary from location to location, with the day(s) of the week and times of the day that the bus lane is in operation being (supposed to be) clearly marked on signs at the bus lane entry points. There is also a need for extra signs so that vehicles joining from side roads are properly notified of when the bus lane is in operation, but sometimes transport authorities ignore this requirement. But they still remember to fine those uninformed vehicle drivers if they enter a bus lane when it is in use.

However many drivers of other vehicles (especially cars) seem to either not be able to read the signs, too stupid to understand the signs or just too lazy to read the signs and avoid bus lanes all the time. Of course this is great for the buses but since the aim should be to help the buses keep to the time table then maybe there are times when traffic is such that priority measures are simply not needed.

As an aside another reason why the bus lanes are avoided, even when not active is because with very tough and unforgiving enforcement (often via means of remote surveillance cameras operated by cash-hungry organisations) if the car / van driver is unsure whether the bus lane is in operation they would rather not take a chance and end up with a fine. This often results in those drivers who do read the bus lane signs being able to drive legally along the bus lanes up the inside of a number of sometimes lengthy queues.

On the same Internet-based forum as above some bus drivers commentated on how (because of the way in which the remote surveillance cameras are used) vehicles turning left across bus lanes tend to stay in the main traffic flow until the last second, and when they do turn left they sometimes cut out infront of the moving bus - requiring it to stop "very quickly".

Bus lane woes...

Bus lanes are not much use when the bus cannot even enter it!

The road junction in the photograph above has what is known as a "yellow box" where technically road users should not enter unless their exit is clear. The penalty for contravening this involves both a fine and penalty points adding to a driver's license. This applies to bus drivers too!

In London (and other cities'?) transport planners have been so zealous in painting road junctions with yellow boxes and "ringfencing" the junction by extending the area of the box to cover a far larger area than is really appropriate, that sometimes the exit has become so far away from the entrance that it is not possible to see the exit! Then they (the traffic planners) have started to use roadside surveillance cameras to prosecute otherwise innocent road users who inadvertently find themselves forced to break the law. At least once a taxicab driver appealed against his prosecution, and won, because the judge too decided that it was virtually impossible to avoid breaking the law.

The same internet based forum from which the bus lane comments (above) were sourced also discussed yellow box junctions and driver entrapment, with one person sharing a situation where a bus operator told London's transport planners that unless one specific box junction was altered so that their drivers were able to see the exit then it (the bus company) would instruct its drivers that instead of using "commonsense" they must blindly follow the law and never enter the box junction unless their exit is clear. Since the drivers were unable to see the exit this would mean that they would remained stopped at the box junction's entrance. Of course this would have caused traffic chaos, but short of a uniformed police officer telling them otherwise it would be the only legal way to comply with the letter of law!

Another bus driver told of an incident when a taxi driver performed a "u" turn at a traffic light junction with a yellow box, which resulted in the bus no longer being able to exit from the junction without fouling the yellow box.

Despite it not being his fault this resulted in a fine, which the bus company (his employer) paid quickly to benefit from the 50% discount and then docked the funds from the driver's pay.

An alternative option to bus lanes is for complete roadways to be dedicated to buses. It could be said that giving buses their own right of way puts them on par with many of the more modern light rail systems, where shared use of the public highway, whilst possible, is usually minimised. However unlike light rail the bus will still need a properly made up road surface. (This does not apply to 'kerb guided' buses, a technology which is looked at below).

As with bus lanes, bus-only roads still need to be protected against abuse by unauthorised vehicles, although typically this will only be at junctions, and not along the entire length. In some cities taxis and the emergency services are also allowed to use bus-only roads.

Bus-only roads are frequently major constituent parts of 'Bus Rapid Transit' (BRT) systems, these being enhanced urban transport systems that use rubber-tyred buses - and not steel wheeled trains & trams.

In much of Europe BRT systems are seen as solutions for the less busy transport corridors which need improving but do not justify the higher investment needed for steel-rail based transports. Frequently these will complement the cities' other existing rail based transports although there are a few cities which have installed them instead of steel rail based solutions.

Outside of Europe BRT systems have found favour in some of the less wealthy members of our global family of nations, where the required funds for investment in steel rail based transports are simply unavailable (especially South America) as well as Britain and Australia where the decision to use buses has been either commercially or politically motivated - for both financial and dogmatic reasons.

Australia.

Several cities in Australia feature busway systems, including Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth - although in the latter some sections of former busway are being converted to heavy rail.

By 2012 Brisbane plans to have a network of 5 busways, which will be in addition to an extensive suburban electric rail system. One of the bus-only roads which is already opened is the South East Busway, which is 16.5km in length and includes 2km of elevated roadway, 1630m of tunnel and 10 bus stations. For much of its length it is located along one side of a six-lane motorway. Although single track in each direction there are overtaking lanes at the stations. This allows express buses to pass buses making stops.

The first stage of Brisbane's Inner North Busway (INB) opened in February 2004, and in 2006 construction began of a second stage which will be routed in tunnels below the city centre and include two underground bus stations. Scheduled to open in late 2008 the INB extension will feed into the already extant large subterranean city centre bus station.

Canada.

The Canadian Capital of Ottawa features an extensive and successful BRT Transitway. This is based on grade separated bus-only roads that by means of overpasses, bridges, and trench highways are located mostly either above or below street level, so that they rarely intersect directly with the regular traffic. The exception is in the city centre, where delays are commonplace. Buses which use the Transitway benefit from an ability to travel long distances without stopping for a single traffic light. Most sections of the Transitway have a speed limit of 70-90 km/h (45-55 mph) between stations, and 50 km/h (30 mph) in the station areas.

However with nearly 200 diesel buses per hour per direction travelling on the Ottawa Transitway's city centre section it is operating well over capacity. This has caused numerous complaints from residents and businesses about traffic disruption, noise and air pollution from diesel engines. No solution is in sight because even though the system was designed for conversion to light rail, the street-based city centre portion is not, due to the fact that it uses public roads and has just the one bus-only lane per direction. Furthermore, even if the busiest routes were converted to light rail there will still be many other bus routes which would remain as bus services and building an underground busway through Ottawa city centre has been deemed to be prohibitively expensive.

As an aside, Ottawa has been trialling the use of light-weight trains (as used extensively in Europe) as a prelude to a probable light rail line, but this is being seen as an option for a different transport corridor.

USA.

For many years Pittsburgh has been acknowledged as making the most extensive use of bus-only roads in the USA, although with ever increasing traffic congestion recent years have seen some other US cities have also started to build BRT systems too.

In all Pittsburgh's system comprises of three separate sections of busway. The 4.3mile South Busway is said to be the oldest operating busway in the USA. It is used by 16 bus routes which serve 9 bus stops. The West Busway is five miles in length, is served by 11 bus routes and features six stations. The Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway was built in two stages and now totals 9.1 miles in length. It is used by 34 bus routes, of which 31 are express routes that circulate within many communities and then benefit from a non-stop, traffic-free commute into Pittsburgh city centre. There are nine bus stations plus one bus stop. A distinctive feature of the MLK Jr. East Busway is that much of it is located alongside a very busy heavy rail right of way where the train and bus are separate but share the same overall transport corridor. Pittsburgh's system also includes several tunnels, including former railway tunnels now used by buses and a tunnel where the buses share a right of way with light rail services. Alas not having personally visited Pittsburgh and with there not being any copyright-free images of its busways on Wikipedia so at the present time it is not possible to show images sourced from here.

Whilst some of the other American BRT systems include sections of single carriageway bus-only road there are several systems where the buses use HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes on the normal highway which are restricted to vehicles with two (or for some locations three) or more than people in the vehicle.

Another of the USA's high-profile BRT services is the Metro Orange Line in Los Angeles, California. Named after the many citrus trees that once blanketed the San Fernando Valley, this is Metro's only bus service which has a 'colour' name, although it is also known as route No. 901. Because of its special status the Orange Line is also the only bus service to appear on the Metro Rail System Map which depicts the region's network of light and heavy rail (steel wheel) transports.

The reason for the Orange Line's special status is that from the outset it was designed with many of the characteristics which usually feature on a (steel wheel) light rail system, such as a dedicated right-of-way, stations spread further apart than is usual for local bus services (typically one mile apart), platform ticket machines for faster boarding, park-and-ride facilities and other amenities. Part of the Orange Line's route was a conversion of a former railway, although as some of these images suggest, there is also some street running too.

The Orange Line also has its detractors, especially from the pro-light rail lobbies, who point out that in less than a year of operation the "Orange Line" busway pavement (ie: 'road surface' in British English) has become seriously rutted, deteriorated, and uneven, producing rough, uncomfortable riding quality for passengers and more wear and tear on buses. They also point out that by way of contrast, railway tracks tend to retain durability and smooth riding qualities for much longer.

Transantiago: A Disastrous implementation of a BRT System.

It is important that new high profile transport systems are implemented with the primary aim of adding value to the lives of the people who will use the system. Whilst no doubt this was the intended aim it is unfortunate that severe teething problems with the implementation of the Transantiago system in Santiago, Chile, has seen the very opposite result, with many commuters finding that the ending of through buses between their residential areas and places of work has resulted in journey times doubling.

The matter is highly contentious, but judging by comments from various media sources (including specialist bus transport media) it seems that the system was started prematurely, without construction of the BRT infrastructure (bus lanes / bus stops) having been completed and without there even being enough buses to carry the passengers who must now travel on 'feeder' buses from their homes to the metro or Transantiago BRT bus stations, where they need to change vehicles to complete their journeys. Apparently not only has the inconvenience resulted in significant public disturbances - with as many as 830 people arrested at one disturbance alone - but also because so many people have been constantly arriving late for work February and March 2007 saw the country's economy suffering lower than expected growth. As ever it seems that the people suffering the most are those living in working class areas, which suggests that the implementation of the new system was made without enough regard to the needs of many ordinary working people.- ie: the people upon whom the economic well-being of the entire nation depends.

The following text is dated to 1st July 2007 and comes from the English language page of the "Wikipedia" encyclopædia. It is hoped that this disastrous situation will improve 'very soon', and that other cities will take note to avoid similar situations arising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transantiago.

Transantiago is the public transport system that serves Santiago, capital city of Chile. It was introduced on February 10, 2007, replacing the previous chaotic system run by thousands of independent bus operators. The system works by combining local bus lines, main bus lines and the Metro (subway) network. It includes an integrated fare system, which allows passengers to make bus-to-bus or bus-to-metro transfers for the price of one ticket, using a single contactless smartcard.

Transantiago's implementation has been problematic. Some of the bus companies have not put out the required fleet in operation, making the bus headway irregular and generating large crowds and long queues outside Metro stations and bus stops. The fleet management software (which includes the use of GPS) has not been implemented. Segregated bus corridors have also not been constructed and "paid zones" have been improvised. The lack of trust by users in the bus system has overcrowded the Metro. There is also criticism of a lack of line coverage in the city's peripheral areas, which were well covered under the previous system.

Transantiago has also spawned Chile's largest class-action suit, as when a community leader discovered the new transit system did not run to his old place of employment - forcing him to change jobs - he united some 800 other commuters who had suffered similarly in an action claiming damages of US$38,000 each. In what is being seen as an intelligent and civilised way to protest (instead of just rioting), the legal action is not being done to become wealthy, rather it is about getting respect. The Chilean constitution assures the Chilean people of a right to be able to live in dignity and in a clean environment, and under Transantiago this is not happening.

Although the focus is primarily on the transports per se - and not BRT as a transport technology - the following two links lead to pages with more information about South American and European enhanced high-capacity bus systems. Curitiba in Brazil , New-era High-tech buses..

Bus-only Roads in the UK.

Although Brazil is said to be the first country to have a reserved lane busway system in a large city, the town of Runcorn, Cheshire, can claim the invention of this method of transport.

Runcorn was one of the post WW2 'new towns' which was built around an existing rural community and unusually for the UK the provision for a bus-only road network was included in the design blueprint. It is approximately 14 miles [22km] in length and is shaped like a 'figure-of-eight' so that it serves most of the town's residential & industrial areas, with the busway 'crossing' in the town centre, where the buses serve the Halton Lea Shopping Centre. To better integrate with the shopping city and avoid other road traffic there are two short (approximately ¼ mile [400 metres]) elevated sections of busway, these include bus stations that were designed and built as integral parts of the entire complex. The northern elevated busway serves eastbound buses and the southern elevated busway serves westbound buses.

The busway is mostly one lane each way and apart from a section of a couple of miles to the west of the town is fully segregated from other traffic. The road widens at bus stops to permit overtaking. Housing and employment locations are distributed such that 90% of the working population is within a 1/3rd mile [500 metres] or five minute walk of the nearest bus stop, with the stops being about ¼ mile [400 metres] apart.

Many people see buses as having a 'down at heel' image, being solely for those people whose transport options will not extend to anything else. The Runcorn busway has not helped in countering this perception, as it has been subject to extreme vandalism (especially at bus stops) and general neglect. This helps explain why many promoters of other British BRT systems are so keen on being proactive in trying to create and maintain high quality transport operations. As they know, whilst very desirable, congestion-free private rights of way are not the whole story.

Commencing services on Sunday 26th March 2006 'Fastrack' is a BRT system which is based on the creation of brand new bus-only roads, although in places it also uses the ordinary public highway (depending on where - with and without bus lanes). Ultimately planned to feature four routes, 'Fastrack' links several towns and other major traffic destinations just south of the River Thames in North Kent, this being an area which the national government would like to see benefit from greater development as a way of reducing the pressure for residential building in London. What happens to areas alongside the River Thames when global climate changes results in sea levels rising is a different issue.

The ethos behind Fastrack is to provide a transport of a quality that is midway between the train and the bus (ie: 'better' or 'higher' than a normal bus service - more like a tramway) so there is a strict ban on any other bus services from using the newly constructed dedicated bus-only roads. This ban even extends to London's famous red buses which serve the nearby Bluewater shopping centre. One reason for the ban might be because under the British system of bus deregulation this is the only way that the system's backers can control the quality of the vehicles being provided. (The London buses can be banned because Dartford is in Kent, which is outside of the protected 'London' bus area).

In its initial stages Fastrack uses normal single deck buses which were bought by Kent County Council with funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Sustainable Communities Plan. It is anticipated that as traffic increases so higher capacity (and possibly distinctively styled) articulated buses will become financially viable.

Elsewhere in Britain

A 'North Thames' counterpart of Fastrack is proposed for the Thameside regions in South Essex. Provisionally known as SERT (SouthEast Rapid Transit) it is led by Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Essex County Council and Thurrock Council on behalf of Thames Gateway South Essex partnership, which is masterminding the regeneration strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex. With global climate changes and the possibility of sea levels rising in mind the wisdom of encouraging people to invest / live in a coastal area beggars belief. OK, this is not (yet) a transport related issue.

In Swansea, South Wales a 10 vehicle fleet of the pink and purple livered StreetCar buses is being introduced on a high profile BRT system. Expected to cost £14 million the proposals are to create a tram-like 'high quality bus network' which will use a mix of private right of way and shared use of the public highway, including some bus lanes, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes plus, where required, other bus priority measures. Marketed as the Swansea Metro this BRT scheme is a partnership between the City & County of Swansea and First Cymru Buses. It is being funded by the Welsh Assembly Government and the European Objective One programme. To avoid too much duplication the StreetCar buses are looked at in greater detail on the Hi-tech New-era Hi-tech buses page.

Tracline 65 bus stops platforms were designed for single-door buses, requiring accurate stopping by bus drivers. The sign asks passengers to stand clear of the edge when a bus approaches, partly for safety but presumably also to allow alighting passengers to pass first.

Ipswich: A view looking along the busway from the Ipswich end. Being only 200 metres long it takes just a few minutes to walk its entire length!

North Leeds: Bus calling at stop on Scott Hall Road.

The East Leeds system includes both single and double track sections of busway. However because only some buses use the guided busway all bus stops are also duplicated at the kerbside.

Bradford's busway has several of these 'super stops' which feature wind turbine powered electrically heated seats!

Traffic signals allow vehicles turning right to cross the path of a road-centre guided busway in safety.

Selby Road features a short inbound busway which ends shortly before the road narrows to pass under a railway bridge (seen in distance).

Special traffic signals with twin converging white lines instead of a green lamp help prevent other road users confusing their signals with those dedicated to the buses.

	Birmingham Tracline 65 kerb guided bus at a bus stop. Clicking either of the two Tracline 65 images will lead to a dedicated page showing more (and larger) images in a popup window; alternatively clicking here will open the page in a new full-size window.
	Because not all bus operators have fitted guide-wheels to their buses some buses must continue to use the public highway.

It is well known that most car drivers see motor buses as slow, utilitarian vehicles that are constantly stopping, and if caught in traffic these motorists would very much prefer to be sitting in their cars listening to their stereos rather than in a bus! Even the bus companies admit (albeit only in private) that as a mode of transport buses have a 'down at heel' image. As a contrast modern trams are seen as sleek, sophisticated, rapid, comfortable, clean and fume free, in fact everything that efficient rapid transit needs to be. So if buses are to achieve their full potential then there is a need for them to be seen in a light similar to the trams. To be kind to the drafters of British bus deregulation and privatisation this is probably what they had hoped would have happened. The reality was, and in many places still remains, very different.

Trams often have their own private rights of way which enables them to bypass congestion, and for Britain the idea behind most of the kerb guided bus schemes is to emulate that feature. The thinking is that if 5% of a bus's route takes 20% of its journey time, then investment should be made on that 5%, elsewhere the bus can use the normal road. If, later, congestion worsens then more trackage can be constructed on a 'as required / available space basis'. With guided buses the trackage can be installed almost anywhere, even places that would otherwise be too narrow for 'driver steered' bus lanes.

As with ordinary bus lanes kerb guidance trackage can be available to almost any eligible vehicle, all the bus operator has to do is fit guide-wheels to its vehicles and make sure its drivers are properly trained! - because of the special driving techniques required (how to enter and use the busway and the importance of not hitting the kerb with the guide-wheels when driving on the normal highway) the British government has made it a criminal offence for untrained drivers to drive guide-wheel equipped buses, whether on the busway or ordinary road.

Whether the inspiration behind the development of kerb guidance in Britain was copied from the Germans is not known, however whereas Adelaide's busway uses technology purchased from Mercedes-Benz the British systems use British technology.

The first British line opened in 1984 in Birmingham, again as part of what effectively was an experiment in bus transport. The larger picture was to see if by a program of concentrated improvements along a specific route that led to faster journeys and a generally higher quality of service to passengers it would be possible to attract more people to bus transport. The guided section of Trackline 65 was just a 600 metre strip at the very end of the route in an area where traffic congestion was not an issue; elsewhere new bus lanes were created, parking restrictions introduced / stiffened, more and better bus shelters erected and there was much media publicity. As far as guided operation was concerned the experiment was always meant to be of limited duration and closure came in 1987 when following bus deregulation a rival bus company won the contract for the Sunday service and with it not willing to spend money equipping vehicles with guide wheels the situation arose whereby there would have had to be different stops (on the parallel dual carriageway) for different days of the week.

A typical scene in Britain (as seen from an upstairs front window on a double deck bus) - a dual carriageway in sore need of bus priority measures. 'Ordinary' bus lanes would not be appropriate here whereas kerb guidance would provide an optimum congestion-busting solution that would not be open to abuse from other road vehicles.

Since 1995 six guided bus installations have been opened in Britain, three in Yorkshire (North and East Leeds plus Bradford) as well as one in a village near to Ipswich, one in the Crawley / Gatwick Airport area and one in the Scottish Capital City of Edinburgh. The latter opened in 2004 at which time it featured the longest section of continuous guideway in the UK. However it only lasted until January 2009 when it was closed for conversion to tramway. In addition one more system is under construction whilst construction of another system is expected to be underway sometimes in 2009 or 2010. More information about these can be found on the dedicated Kerb Guidance /'O-Bahn' page which opens in a new window.

Perversely the opening of the Bradford guided busway was accompanied by a 25% reduction in the parallel road's speed limit (from 40mph to 30mph). Unfortunately this creates the impression that faster, better & generally more attractive bus transports can only be achieved if car travel is made slower and less attractive. This lunacy suggests that the transport planners have fallen prey to the Luddite anti-car ideology of "lets screw the motorist in every which way we can" instead of following what is the only true solution to traffic congestion - this being improving the public transports in their own right so that those people who have a choice (ie: car users!) will see them to provide positive alternative choices to driving.

Any more?

Over the years many transport planners, private bus companies and local governments have investigated such schemes for their areas, although (as with proposed tramway systems) issues related to financing their construction have seen most fall by the wayside.

Virtually all of these proposed British KGB schemes included guidance as part of a wider package of 'overall corridor enhancements', which is very important, as it is not good enough to just bypass traffic queues - high quality buses and bus stops, real-time information, good road surfaces (and more) are also important aspects of successful transport whilst minimalistic bus stops with perhaps careworn shelters (if at all) and old tatty buses with poor internal fittings simply will not provide an attractive alternative to either a comfortable motor car or a rail journey. This explains why there is a constant concern among the 'quality bus' operators that if a 'cheepo' bus company was to equip its vehicles with guide wheels it would undermine their efforts to prove that bus transport can also be quality transport. In the cut-throat competitive world of bus deregulation there is little to prevent this from happening, except perhaps the ability of a company to afford the initial outlay.

Hmmm...

It may be noteworthy that whilst bus rapid transit (BRT) systems are being installed in many countries globally Britain seems to be the only country which sees kerb guided busway technology as being a useful part of BRT.

The busway was formed of a special high resistance anti-skid block paving laid in a herringbone pattern, under which the guidance cables were invisibly fitted. Although this paving would have reduced the ride quality the short distance and low speed meant it would not have been a major issue. This choice of road surface was influenced by a desire to avoid 'rutting' - a common problem with bus lanes - caused by the vehicles' rubber tyres only using the same narrow strips of roadway. The busway included two stops with mini platforms offering level access with the bus.

Among the reasons for choosing to use under-road guidance technology here were:-

• The ability to allow automatic 'docking' at bus stops to within 40mm of the kerb,
• The ability to allow non-guided buses to use the same roadway, and
• The ability to allow broken down vehicles to be passed without major disruption to services.

Apparently the original idea had been to use guided trolleybuses, or even trams, but because planning for the transport link was only started 16 months before it had to open it was deemed that there would not be enough time to comply with the cumbersome British legislative requirements for new 'fixed infrastructure' transport systems which involve overhead-wire. This is a most strange excuse because the Dome's promoters were able to obtain the required Parliamentary powers to get the heavily polluted land cleared and the Dome designed, built and opened all in a very short time scale, showing what can be done if there is a political will to do it. In August 2003 the Swedish town of Landskrona opened a completely new trolleybus system which had been successfully designed and installed in just one year from when the city council voted for it. What a contrast with the British planning process which encourages paralysis by analysis!!!

Erm, into Public Service?

The guided busway was expected to have opened to fare paying passengers at the same time as the Dome, (ie: 1st January 2000!) but whilst the special buses did enter passenger service (using the public highway) the busway remained closed for further testing.

Unconfirmed reports (rumours) for this varied. One suggestion was that the tracks had been put too close together for buses to pass safely! Whether or not this is true some reports suggested that at some stage the original large wing mirrors on the buses were replaced by much smaller standard bus mirrors, which would indeed improve clearance.. Other rumours suggested that the delay was caused by problems with buses 'touching' the platforms at the Millennium Village stop if they pass through at 'normal' speed without stopping. Whatever the reality, on a visit early in February 2000 it was noted that some road widening / kerb realignment was underway near the terminus at the Dome where buses perform a right-hand 'u'-turn, and where the 'u'-turn area narrows (for the road to become just 'two lanes' wide again). Both sets of works were well fenced-in with heavy tarpaulin covering the wire mesh - presumably to hide what was being done. The photographs (below) were taken on a very windy day when some of the fences had been blown down. Much to my amazement when one of the workmen saw me using a camera he became very agitated, making it quite clear that he did not want me to take any photos; on attempting to speak to him (to ask him why 'no photos') he became exceptionally hostile and fearing for my own safety I left the area (in a hurry!). At the time such behaviour seemed more reminiscent of a petty official in a tinpot dictatorship than a nation that prides itself as a bastion of the free world - although since the 9/11 events in the USA this type of hostility towards people using cameras (especially near to locations served by public transport) has become commonplace. The petty officials and police often cite 'security' reasons, but they seem to have forgotten that mobile phone cameras and near-invisible shirt button cameras are easily obtainable by those whose intentions are dishonourable.

These works were very close to the inconspicuous grey boxes where a few weeks earlier some workmen had been seen tinkering - these boxes contain electronic control gear for the guided busway and the workmen were probably carrying out remedial works to cure some problems. The hostility shown to me was consistent with someone with 'something to hide' - perhaps the private consortia behind the guided busway had their 'backs to the wall' and were embarrassed that the system was not yet operational. It may also be significant that just days earlier the Dome announced disastrous attendance figures (which could have been attributed to exceptionally negative press reviews and the usual 'New Year' slowdown in the travel / leisure industry) and had to seek a £60 million 'short term loan', plus the Government had replaced the boss of the company that runs it with someone from the Disney (Mickey Mouse, etc.,) organisation.

Even after these works the busway remained out of use and by September it was announced that 'insurmountable technical difficulties' had forced a 10-12 month postponement of the plans for the buses to use electronic guidance. Some reports suggested that new parts were required, and the delay was caused because it would take this long to design, manufacture and install them. Other reports suggested an official admission that the technology was not ready and would need another couple of years' development,

By December the scheme had been quietly shelved. The Dome (which had been intended as a focus for the nation's celebrations for the year 2000 and together with its internal exhibits was only just completed 'in the nick of time') had been a financial disaster with attendance figures about half of the original estimates, and whilst the bus demonstration system had only been partially realised a new electric tram / light rail line that had opened during the year in Croydon was proving far more successful than either the Dome or its bus services. Whilst it could be that the exceptionally hostile press reviews^§ were to blame for poor attendances, it seems most of the people who actually visited The Dome were impressed by what they saw. (As an aside, the Expo 2000 in Hannover, Germany was also a technical success but financial failure).

^§It is very possible that the hostile press reviews can be attributed to 'revenge' after the three [3] hour delays[!] many invited guests - including many newspaper feature writers and editors - suffered on their way to The Dome on its opening night.

One unexpected problem for the guided busway (virtually a final nail in the coffin) was that the body under whose jurisdiction the safety of new 'fixed infrastructure transports' - including all types of guided bus technology - fell at the that time (Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate - HMRI) wanted to apply railway-style safety criteria, which with hindsight may not have been the ideal solution for a bus transport.

Of particular concern here was what would happen in the event of a sudden failure in the guidance system and how the driver would react. Reports vary, with one suggestion being that the issue was whether such a failure would be to 'safe' (ie: retain some sort of guidance or automatically stop before 'derailing' and without the danger of a vehicle behind crashing into it) or 'danger' (ie: guidance fails and vehicle is unsteered until the driver retakes control). With road transports most failures are to 'danger'!.

Other reports suggest that the guidance system was designed on the assumption that the bus driver would maintain a high level of vigilance and therefore in the event of any emergency (such as a vehicle in a side road not waiting for the bus to pass before passing in front of it) so a reaction time of 0.6 second would be allowed for the bus driver to take appropriate action (in this case, make an emergency stop). However, it seems that the Railway Inspectorate used the much longer railway response time of 2.5 seconds, which works well for sighting signals, etc., on the railway, but is too long for a road vehicle.

This mismatch of safety criteria vastly impacted requirements for system intelligence with situations which would not have been critical for the shorter response time becoming major challenges for the system. Using the same example as above, 2.5 seconds would have been far too long to allow the driver to react, so by implication some sort of obstacle detection and avoidance technology was now required.

Long Term Use.

Once the Millennium celebrations were over Transport for London published proposals to use this busway as part of a regional transport system (provisionally called Waterfront Transit) that will link both sides of the River Thames via public transport only lanes on a new bridge. If these proposals come to fruition they may even feature articulated trolleybuses / duo-buses or trams (the whole route was built to meet tramway standards regarding curves and gradients). We shall see... One thing is certain however, having had its fingers well and truly burnt under-road wire guidance is not on the agenda.

It was originally planned that the two special Millennium Dome bus services (M1 & M2) would cease to operate after the Millennium celebrations had finished and once the Dome had been closed. However during the year of their operation many local people found that especially route M1 provided them with an excellent transport link as a feeder into the Jubilee Line Underground station. So whilst the two Dome bus routes did indeed cease on 23rd February 2001 route M1 was replaced with bus route 486 which also served local hospitals and other destinations in south-east London. Initially the 486 used the same buses, making it one of the few bus routes in London (at that time) to use full size single deck buses. However the buses became somewhat temperamental and at times had to be substituted with double deck buses. The LPG buses were especially unreliable and their lack of opening windows combined with the air conditioning seeming to have been disconnected resulted in them being somewhat uncomfortable in the warmer weather. When in February 2007 the bus service contract was renewed the opportunity was taken to formally replace the Millennium Dome buses with standard double deckers.

In the meantime on the 2nd June 2001 the busway was reopened, this time for 'driver steered' buses. As these images suggest, several bus routes now use this busway, although there are problems at some of the 'level crossings' (traffic signal controlled road junctions) where the buses often spend several minutes at a time sitting at red traffic signals.

Repercussions.

Following the total abandonment of the wire guidance on the Dome busway the Riverside Transit scheme in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne has opened using driver steered Designline diesel-electric hybrid buses sourced from New Zealand. Hybrid buses are looked at on another page.

In London the proposed use of wire guidance on the East London Transit bus scheme which would have seen wire guided trolleybuses using the public highway, has been demoted to become little more than a high profile conversion and possible extension of bus route 369 / shortening of other bus routes, retaining the use of ordinary driver steered motorbuses.

A Personal Opinion This comment will not be what some transport industry professionals, transport planners, transport operators, politicians or transport advocates (lobbyists, etc) want to hear but the reality is that whilst the choice of motorbuses and electronic guidance may have been very 'politically correct' for part of the transport system serving the Dome it did not enthuse the public in any way, shape or form and hence will be another reason why the Dome failed to reach its full potential as a tourist-orientated destination. The reality is that bog-standard motorbuses do not have the necessary 'persona' to attract car drivers to switch to them - otherwise modal shift would have been achieved years ago! This explains why there is so much interest in the distinctively styled New-era Hi-tech Buses that retain the 'go anywhere' flexibility for which buses are renown but are styled to look more like trams. In summer 2003 the Swedish city of Lanskrona opened a new trolleybus route which had been planned, installed & opened within just one year of the politicians deciding to install it. If they could do it then why couldn't similar have been done for The Dome's bus services? Image sourced from the free online "Wikipedia" encyclopædia (link here) (link to an external site which opens in a new window) Route M1 should have been a tram service, as was featured at several Garden Festivals in the 1980's and the success of which was proven without doubt. There could have been a mixture of historic and modern tramcars with the tramcar manufacturers being invited to lend vehicles to demonstrate their latest designs. This has been done in other cities globally (eg Barcelona, Spain). Furthermore, because virtually all of the route of bus M1 was on brand new roadway the tracks could have been installed during the construction phase (very cost effective!) AND it would have been easy to ensure that no underground utilities would be under them (avoiding the major expense of their relocation which affects most new street-based tram systems). The issue of the voltage difference between modern and historic tramways could have been resolved by alternate day operation. The other Millennium Bus route (M2) which serves Greenwich town centre should have used trolleybuses, which again could have involved a mixture of historic and modern vehicles. Special facilities could have enabled 'drive on the right' overseas trolleybuses to operate here in safety; after all, only a couple of bus stops were involved - not all of which were even on the public highway. The implication of these comments is that the Dome would have been served by an environmentally sound 'all electric' transport system; a happy state of affairs which would have better demonstrated just how attractive (and clean) street-based public transport can be. Furthermore the use of a mix of historic and modern electric transports would have attracted some of the global camaraderie of transport enthusiasts - whilst it may be that these people wear anoraks is it not also the case that they spend money??? No doubt some of them would have come with families and also visited The Dome. Incidentally, whilst infrastructure for street-based public transports (overhead electric power supply wires and tram rails) usually require cumbersome long-winded planning permissions which take an eternity to achieve the mere fact that the government was able to get the legislation for the Dome enacted, the heavily polluted land cleared and the Dome designed, built & opened all in a very short time scale shows what can be done if there is a political will to do it.

October 2007 Update.

These views from October 2007 show that the former guided busway is now just an ordinary bus-only road flanked on one side by a road which is open to all vehicles. So although a quick glance may make it look like this is a normal dual carriageway it is actually two single carriageway bi-directional roads. As the images below suggest, sometimes the buses use both carriageways...and so do some private cars!

Although theoretically private bus-only roads should be about 'rapid' transit the combination of the low speed limit - just 30mph (50 km/h) - and long delays sitting at red traffic signals (even when there is no other traffic using the junctions) means that the services which use this busway are anything but 'rapid'.