Whilst the proposed "CRT" (Cross River Tramway) will undoubtably prove to be very beneficial it will still only serve a limited area along a single transport corridor. Although there could be scope for other localised suburban tramway networks elsewhere within the Greater London area financial constraints simply do not permit a network of sufficient size to really make a difference. Trolleybuses are a bus-based solution which use proven technology - that could be installed at a fraction of the cost, and in much less time too!
As an aside, in addition to providing better transport links to certain parts of London another reason for the CRT tramline is that it will be a cheaper solution to relieve overcrowding on parts of the London Underground Northern and Victoria lines than completing the express tube tunnels which were partially built in the late 1930's / early 1940's.
STOP PRESS
January 2009: Britain is to be prosecuted by the EU for severe urban air pollution
See below for further details
Poor health caused by air pollution is a big problem in London and with more than 7000 diesel buses on London's streets it stands to reason that they must be part of the problem - with zero-emission (at point of use) electrically powered trams and trolleybuses
being part of the solution.
In 2005 214 people were killed on London's roads - but over 3000 Londoners died of air pollution related illnesses.
Yet whilst the motoring offences from which revenues can be raised seem to be attracting ever more diligent attention by the various authorities the issue of air pollution only receives token interest - the metaphorical "lip service".
Data source: Road deaths - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/casualties_in_greater_london_during_2005.pdf
Air pollution - http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=21899
To avoid taking you away from this web page the above links both open in new web browser windows.
According to a report published by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy - CSP - the PM10 air particles which are emitted mainly by diesel engines pose such a serious threat to public health that the World Health Organisation (WHO) believes there is NO SAFE exposure limit. The CSP's analysis revealed very high levels of this dangerous pollutant - not just in London but throughout the UK. The full story can be found by following this link which opens in a new window.
Trams (streetcars) are almost always electrically powered - indeed this feature is often touted as one of their major benefits - and there really is no reason why buses should not be equally city (and town!) friendly.
It really is most strange that so many transport 'experts' (operators, environmental advocates, lobby groups etc.,) have such double-standards with respect to air quality (or lack of) and bus / tram propulsion systems.
What Is needed For London. Urgently!
(The Bus Solution To Air Pollution.)
In an effort to combat air pollution in 2007 London's Mayor introduced a "LEZ" Low Emissions Zone throughout the entire Greater London area. Of course this is very laudable and there is no question that as a result there is some reduction in the not inconsiderable air pollution emitted by taxis and heavy goods vehicles.
London's buses are also being kitted out with less dirty diesel engines, however, because buses enjoy the unique advantage in that they follow pre-determined fixed routes their electrification using overhead wires would be relatively straightforward - resulting in their becoming zero emission vehicles just like Croydon's street trams.
For administrative convenience it is easiest to think of the LEZ as being within the area within the M25 Orbital motorway, although the motorway and London's political boundaries do not exactly coincide and to the east there is a small area where the LEZ extends outside the M25. The M25 itself is an exempted road.
Electric Buses Are P o p u l a r With Passengers!
In Arnhem, Holland the transport operators have seen ridership increases in the order of 17% on routes converted from diesels on a "like-for-like" basis. Their five year "Trolley 2000" Trolleybus Rapid Transit (TBRT) strategy was conceived knowing that by using trolleybuses passenger levels would be up to 21% higher than would have been expected using the best type of diesel buses. Experience in Arnhem has shown that a service which is busy enough to justify a bus every 10 minutes - six buses an hour - is cheaper to operate with trolleybuses than motorbuses. In Salzburg, Austria ridership increases have been 16% and the city is part way through a long term trolleybus expansion project which includes several brand new trolleybus routes (one of which will be an express service with the overhead wiring configured for overtaking) and converting several more diesel routes to electric operation. Another aspect of these ambitious plans is to see an almost total elimination of fossil fuel powered buses from Salzburg's streets. (This is being done for environmental reasons). Increases in ridership have also been noted in the USA, for instance Seattle and San Francisco. In the latter city a passenger survey found that while the streetcars are the overwhelming 1st choice - even for routes where they are not a viable proposition - the electric buses are considerably more popular than the motorbuses, which are actively disliked, being rated as noisy and smelly. Indeed when roadworks caused temporary motorbus substitution of some electric bus services (with service frequencies and journey times remaining unchanged) there was an 11.33% downturn in passenger patronage that can only be explained by passengers making a pro-active choice to avoid the motorbuses.
It is advantageous for Arnhem that it uses trolleybuses, which share the same clean air advantages as trams / light rail as this helps it maximise the environmental benefits of its investment in the TBRT.
Proposals for London.
In the late 1990's Transport for London (TfL - the London-wide regional government body for transport) published plans for a 53km high-profile Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for east London & metropolitan Essex using clean zero emission electric trolleybuses. This is to be known as East London Transit (ELT) and is part of a series of locally based transport schemes within the Greater London area.
Although the modal choice was influenced by the fact that a steel-wheel tramway would not have been financially viable TfL's own figures showed that the electric buses would have provided the most financially beneficial option and generate 24% higher revenues than a diesel bus scheme ("East London Transit - Summary Report" published by TfL in July 2001).
However TfL now want to back-peddle on their plans for ELT to use trolleybuses - and instead foist upon the people of east London yet more polluting dirty diesel buses. These may be of the 'hybrid' variety but these still use diesel engines which create air pollution - and introduce into the equation batteries which will eventually pose environmental issues when life-expired.
When TfL asked for local people's opinions the response was 2:1 in favour of trolleybuses AND against yet more polluting dirty diesel buses so changing these proposals in this way makes a mockery of any form of public consultation - and even the democratic process which underpins our nation - as well as giving the impression that TfL see the people of east London as second class citizens who can be fobbed off with dirty diesel buses whilst the people of south, central & west London are given clean zero pollution (in the streets) electric tramways.
"Questionable Integrity"?
It can be alleged (but not proven) that there might also have been an element of "questionable integrity" with respect to systems installation costs. Pages 27 and 35 (plus others) of the East London Transit - Summary Report as issued by TfL in July 2001 make it quite clear that the cost of the trolleybus option included an under-road electronic guidance system (ie: the buses would be self steering). But trolleybuses do not need such guidance (the bus driver can do that!) and it could be said that the inclusion of this has only acted to deflect the installation costs upwards. This leads to the question "were the reasons for specifying the unnecessary guidance system to sabotage the trolleybus option by making it appear more expensive than it need be?"
Better value for money than an enlarged CCZ.
It is understood that the decision to go for dirty diesel buses was at least partially influenced by a budgetary shortfall. Everybody understands that even quasi-governmental organisations such as TfL have
only a limited budget nevertheless it is most unfortunate that (at least some of) the people "behind the scenes" (presumably politicians, but this might include others too?) seem to be much more enthusiastic to use those funds on pet projects which disadvantage road users than those which
improve the quality of life of the maximum number of people. So it is most regrettable that a westward expansion of the central London congestion charge (which many local people do not want) seems to be have been given a higher priority than an electric bus system (which many local
people do want)
Whilst it is true that the existing congestion charge zone has resulted in lower levels of air pollution within central London this only benefits the relatively few who live and work there - the introduction of trolleybuses throughout London would benefit considerably more people
throughout the entire Greater London area "adding value" to their (our) daily lives without either falling for the fashionable idea that its good to extract money out of motorists' wallets or negatively impacting on economic activity (although the oil companies might see sales fall).
If still felt to be desirable the expansion of the charging zone could always be realised at a later date.
Image courtesy of the Electric Tbus Group - www.tbus.org.uk
(external link opens in a new window).
The Electric Tbus Group has conducted a detailed study which suggests that for London the conversion of the busiest bus routes (eg: those with a frequency of every 5 minutes or more) would offer significant financial and environmental benefits. Thanks to the network effect where multiple routes operate along the same roads the situation would soon arise whereby many subsequent conversions would entail less additional wiring - both increasing the cost effectiveness of existing wiring and reducing the cost of the electrification of additional routes.
Plus of course Londoners would benefit from the significantly cleaner air in the streets where they live, work and play.
Modern trolleybus in Geneva, Switzerland sharing the pedestrian zone with the trams.
Why just London?!
Indeed, why just London?
Of course other British conurbations would very much like electric street transports too...
and what about the benefits to the global ecology???
According to a 1998 (British) Government report issued by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants air pollution hastens the deaths of between 12000 and 24000 British people a year and is associated with 14000 and 24000 hospital admissions and re-admissions - causing sufferers and their families untold amounts of misery and costing our health service & taxpayers £billions.
In February 2010 the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee was informed that the fatality rate is actually at least 35,000 people a year, and based upon some EU studies possibly even as high as 51,000 people a year.
In effect this means that 50 years after the clean air legislation resulted in the ending of coal sourced smogs the air that we breathe in our towns and cities is yet again so heavily polluted that yet again people are
suffering ill health (and even dying) from it.
It could be asked why our predecessors bothered, only to be failed by future generations.
Many of the most severe sufferers are our children, who when in the street environment are at the right height to breathe in large quantities of particulates as they are blown about by passing traffic. It is no wonder that the incident rate of childhood asthma is now at a record high in our towns and cities.
So (once again) maybe its time to take urban air pollution seriously???
Electric buses would help alleviate the problems of air pollution - not just in the street domain but also within the wider global context. This would then help us in Britain meet our commitment to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010. The House of Commons environmental audit committee says that carbon emissions from transport are 'still moving in the wrong direction' but apart from clobbering motorists with yet more taxes the govt. has failed to find effective ways to entice people out of their cars.
By attracting car users who would not switch to a modern motor bus electrification of our urban bus routes could help reverse this upward trend. This would also help reduce overall road traffic levels too.
A nationwide programme of bus electrification here in Britain would help us justify to the other members of our planet-wide family of nations the urgent need for similar policies for improving both the global and their local
environments.
It would also "add value" to people's daily lives - something which current British government transport & environmental policies totally fail to do.
Trolleybuses, electric buses, air pollution and why so called "cleaner" diesel (aka "less dirty")
buses could be worse that buses which give off visible smoke are looked at on the Electric Buses page from the "citytransport.info" website.
This link leads to a four page letter which was sent to almost 100 elected officials from both local and national governments when a DEFRA air pollution survey found parts of suburban London to be the most polluted localities for NOx in all of the UK.
This link will open the "citytransport.info" website's front page.
This link leads to the Light Rail Transit Association's website, where more information on light rail / trams can be found.
This link leads to the home page of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP).
To avoid taking you away from this web page the above links all open in new web browser windows.
STOP PRESS
January 2009: Britain is to be prosecuted by the EU for severe urban air pollution
In January 2009 a report in The Guardian newspaper revealed that between 2005 - 2007 the air 'quality' in Britain had been so poor as to constantly break British air quality laws, yet alone EU regulations. Not just in a few larger cities, but in as many as 20 conurbations nationwide. Now the EU is planning to prosecute then British government for failing to take appropriate actions to reduce urban air pollution.
Whilst the politician's ideas for expansion in the use of electric cars will help, it is very noticeable, and to be regretted, that they are not equally enthusiastic to see diesel buses replaced with electric trams and trolleybuses.
The full newspaper article can be read here http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/29/pollution-particulate-eu (link opens in a new window)