The first dedicated bus corridor was opened in the UK in 1971, in Runcorn; it had an elevated platform which went into a shopping centre. Since that time there have been numerous bus priority schemes all aiming to protect buses from road congestion and make public transport more attractive to passengers. There have been guided bus systems implemented in Bradford, Crawley, Leeds, Cambridgeshire, Kent and Luton-Dunstable. Cambridgeshire has built the longest guided bus system at 25 km long, the Luton-Dunstable system will be capable of operating on both a track and the public roads, Kent operates a non-guided bus system, opened in 2006, with half of the routes operating on space dedicated to the bus system (Deng & Nelson, 2011). These schemes differ from a conventional bus system in that they have, for a significant part of their operation, a dedicated space away from other private traffic. The mass transit term is in reference to a public transport scheme that is a large scale system which tends to serve a city. These mass transit schemes have fast running speeds, they have the capacity to carry a large number of passengers and they generally have a right of way over other transport (Deng & Nelson, 2011).
Since the deregulation of public transport services, the transport requirements of the public have been met by a combination of commercially based public transport, local authorities, and some charities that meet the requirements of certain groups with high specific needs (Brake & Nelson, 2007). The exact proportion of this mix will vary by area, particularly depending on whether the area is comprised of rurally communities or if it is a city.
Most public transport journeys made in the UK by bus use a fixed route service which is registered with the UK Traffic Commissioners, which means that exact routes and the frequency of the service is guaranteed. Although the local or statutory authorities do provide a number of bus services that are not registered. These are, for example, transport for education, care services, social and non-emergency patient transport (Brake & Nelson, 2007).
White (1995) suggests that bus lanes are TDM measures that give buses priority over other modes of traffic in the same road space. King & Bod (1997) suggest that the efficiency of bus priority measures is dictated by the weakest links along the route and this is compounded by the fact that these schemes try to give buses priority whilst maintaining existing traffic flows.
this would make the form of transport more attractive to users and that in “conditions of scarce road space, giving priority to the most efficient users of that space (buses) may reduce total travel time within the network”(White 1995). There is evidence that in areas where buses do not have priority up to a third of the bus journey can be spent stationary. Bus priority measures can include bus lanes, priority at traffic signals and dedicated road space. Case studies show that if bus priority measures are carefully planned and implemented over whole routes that this can significantly increase the number of passengers using buses. Two typical examples are the Edinburgh Greenways Scheme and the London Bus Initiative.
2.3.3.1 Edinburgh greenways scheme:
Edinburgh has suffered from severe traffic congestion since the 1980’s, with a much higher rate of private car ownership than the rest of the UK, with an increase in car ownership of 37% compared to a national average of 19%. This level of car ownership resulted in high pedestrian and cyclists accidents rates, environmental impacts such as noise, air pollution, congestion, and slow travel times with corresponding impacts on business and quality of life. This high percentage of private cars has also affected public transport, effectively reducing the level of service to that of the private car, with the perceived benefits of private car travel. The City Council introduced the bus priority “Greenways” scheme, with the objective of “restoring the balance of car use and public transport.” The priority scheme aims to improve the reliability and speed of bus services in the city, cutting bus journey times by 10% in the hope that this would increase modal shift from private to public transport (Policy note nd.:p1). The council also wished to reduce environmental impacts in the city due to private car use. Greenways were introduced in 1997 and involved the phased introduction of 26 kilometres of bus lanes on five routes within the city. These bus priority measures increased bus priority measures in the city by three-fold. Greenways are different from conventional bus lanes as they require strict enforcement and traffic calming on side streets. These schemes are planned to incorporate cyclist and pedestrian improvements, with priority given to buses and non-motorised travel. The greenway operates through the day, unlike conventional bus lanes, which generally operate at peak times. Yellow road markings are replaced with red lines, which are policed using traffic wardens. The greenways scheme also provides a better standard of bus shelter and information system than is associated with conventional bus lanes. These differences also equate to a more expensive option than
conventional bus lanes, with greenways costing an estimated £500,000 per kilometre and bus lanes costing an estimated £100k /km (Scottish Government 2000). The Scottish Government funded a study into the effectiveness of the greenways. This study revealed that the Greenway had improved the reliability of bus services along the A8 corridor. It also concluded that Greenways provide a greater level of insulation from traffic congestion for businesses fronting major roads, when compared to conventional bus priority measures. This is also evidence as there are an increasing number of passengers using public transport along the A8 route. The study shows that the A8 greenway has improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Bus drivers were in favour of the greenways; however emergency service drivers had mixed views. The study found that in areas where a Greenway is located bus journey times tend to remain constant whereas car journey times increase due to congestion. Taxis are permitted to use the Greenways and therefore their travel times reflected those of the buses. In areas along the route where a Greenway could not be implemented due to restricted space, it was found that bus times were similar to those of private cars. The implementation of Greenways has made bus services more reliable especially in am and pm peak times. The Greenways appear to have reversed the falling levels of public transport usage in parts of the city, although the figures. The data collected in the study indicates that there are a greater number of people using conventional bus lanes coming into the city and a greater percentage of passengers using Greenways when travelling out of the city in the afternoon peak. The study also revealed that the effectiveness of Greenways is largely dependent on policing and enforcement. It was revealed that in areas where there was no retail frontage, the performance of Greenways was similar to conventional bus priority measures. However, Greenways performed better than conventional bus lanes in areas where there was retail frontage.
There is however, evidence that these Greenways are causing delays to non-priority traffic and that Greenways require significantly more policing than conventional bus lanes. Some business owners believe that the Greenway schemes have led to a reduction in overall business with corresponding decreases in annual turnover (Scottish Government 2000).
2.3.3.2 London bus initiative schemes
The London Bus Initiative phase 1 and 2 were implemented since year 2000 supported by strong funding from the government. Phase 1 included routes 220, 270 and 280 in the Borough, which overlapped with each other and created a study corridor between Putney Bridge, SW15 (Thamesfield) and Tooting, SW17 (Graveney) and incorporating Putney Bridge Road, part of the Wandsworth one-way System, Garratt Lane, Mitcham Road, SW15, SW17/18 (Fairfield, Southfields, Earlsfield, Tooting and Graveney) and the loop around St George’s Hospital of Fountain Road, Blackshaw Road and Tooting High Street SW17 (Tooting). Changes to these routes were proposed by JMP Consultants and approved (Paper No. 02-14) by the executive on 14th January 2002. Phase 2 of the London Bus Initiative included ten routes partly within the Borough were involved in this phase.
Figure 2.14: Key bus routes in central London (Source: Google Maps)
UK Department for Transport (DfT) publication on bus priority (2010b) provides information about many other bus lane scheme initiatives in the UK. There are other similar efforts done in the West midlands using the scheme called West Midlands showcase in 1997, Leeds city centre in 1997 and year 2000, Oxford historic city since 1970, and more studies in 1997 and
1999. The West Bromwich town centre implemented Bus lane scheme like the ones mentioned above in 2001 and 2002. It has been claimed that very positive impacts of bus lanes on traffic in a number of cities in the UK has been achieved.
(Hodges 2007) points out that there are 8000 London buses carrying over 6 million people on 700 routes, making it one of the most comprehensive bus services in the world. For the past decade, a key objective of the Mayors transport policy has been to improve the management of the bus network through bus lane priority schemes, such as the London Bus Initiative. The scheme led to a partnership of all the 33 London Boroughs with Transport for London with the objective of delivering the highway infrastructure needed to support London’s existing and planned bus services. The London Bus Initiative Phase 1 (LBI1) was established in 2000 as a 3 year fixed term bus- improvement initiative supported by a £60million grant from the government. The aim was to make bus travel more attractive. The initiative consisted of identifying twenty-seven high frequency bus routes across London, called Bus Plus routes. These routes were selected for improvement works because they served areas where improvements could be made to integrated transport services or where a more reliable bus service was needed to aid regeneration of an area. The partnership took a year to set up and produce a detailed plan of work, followed by two years of design, consultation and detailing. The approach was to consider the whole route and not just sections of a bus route A key objective of the London Bus Initiative partnership was “to improve compliance with bus priority measures along the entire length of all London Bus Initiative routes “, with co- operation from the City Police and the Metropolitan Police. The ultimate objective of these works was to improve the reliability of bus services, to protect bus services from congestion and by improving the services encourage modal shift from the car to public transport.
Figure 2.15: (Hodges 2007) Whole route implementation plan
Each route was assessed in terms of ten main elements, such as enforcement, pedestrian facilities and bus stop improvements; in effect the team agreed that in order to encourage people onto London Buses the whole system needed to be addressed. The ten elements considered are shown in figure 2.14 above. The routes were categorised as quality whole routes and whole routes, with two sub-categories of quality, high priority and priority. The scheme included a careful study of the existing road network and bus performance along the chosen routes. According to Hodges (2007) a range of measures were implemented as part of the scheme including 100 new bus lanes, 50 new pedestrian crossings, improvements to over 300 signalised junctions to give bus priority over other traffic. Enforcement of the bus priorities was achieved by using roadside CCTV and on bus cameras, as well of enforcement officers in every Borough. The scheme also improved the bus fleet with enhanced passenger information, better training for bus drivers and cleaner more efficient bus vehicles.
Hodges (2007) points out that this co-operation between the authorities and the bus companies helped make the scheme a success. The key outcomes of the initiative include an increase in bus patronage with an increase of 22% more passengers over a three-year period.
The scheme has also improved bus reliability with waiting times reduced by 9% and greater customer satisfaction.
Figure 2.16: (Hodges 2007) Annual patronage London bus initiative routes
This scheme deployed parking attendants to enforce the bus lane regulations and issue Penalty Charges to bus lane violators. The bus lanes are monitored using cameras with specially trained staff to enforce the regulations (Bexley 2002). The London Bus initiative has contributed to the increase in bus patronage in London, with an increase of 40% in patronage between 1999 and 2007. These increases are attributed to expanded network, improved reliability and provision of new buses (Hodges 2007).
2.3.3.3 Bus lanes and their assessment
According to Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus (2006)a bus lane is a part of the road which is intended to be used only by buses. Many strategies have been put in place in different areas to ensure the effectiveness of the bus lanes. These schemes were conceived, studied, and implemented in the UK cities, just to name a few; Edinburgh, London, and West Midlands. According to Deng & Nelson (2011) these schemes differ from a conventional bus system in that they have, for a significant part of their operation, a dedicated space away from other private traffic. The mass transit term is in reference to a public transport scheme that is a large scale system which tends to serve a city. These mass transit schemes have fast running speeds, they have the capacity to carry a large number of passengers and they generally have
a right of way over other transport. The schemes have successful milestones, problems, and hence the continued need to improve them is highly considered.
Before and after monitoring of bus performance and patronage results (DfT: 2010) suggest that bus lanes or greenways have been successful in improving bus patronage and improving bus performance. Local people and bus operators are often involved in the exercise, and lessons are learnt from the past. In most cases, suggestions to improve or amend some aspects of the schemes are reached together with the city authorities.
Accessibility can be defined by Brake & Nelson (2007) as “the ease with which an individual can access services and facilities that he or she needs or desires”. This is seen as a vital means of achieving social inclusion, sustainable communities and social justice (Brake & Nelson, 2007).
One method of increasing accessibility is in the use of elevated platforms or very low floors on buses. Not only does this increase speed of loading and unloading, it always enables easier access to people with mobility problems, although the majority of buses can be lowered if necessary for people with obvious needs or at request (Deng & Nelson, 2011).
Bus mass transit schemes are shown to be generally cheaper to implement than equivalent rail or tram services (Deng & Nelson, 2011).
Non-traditional bus services can improve on the efficiency involved. For instance having non or semi fixed route on the bus system, that respond to local user demand in comparison to a fixed service can be used. This could incorporate different fares for standard users and users with additional requirements such as being collected and / or deposited at a specific location. The use of services whose priority is different can be utilised, for instance, using post vans or school children delivery services for buses when the demand is required (Mulley & Nelson, 2009).
Reports are used in the evaluation, monitoring, and performance of the scheme by traffic counts, journey time measurements, casualties and accidents reports, registered local complaints, results from local gallery meetings and workshops. In most cases these reports claim major benefits from bus lane schemes.
Buses are often viewed as being unreliable, slow and a poor quality form of transport, although the rapid transit bus schemes have improved this image with their improved performance (Deng & Nelson, 2011). The use of separate bus lanes will increase the speed of the bus although it obviously will have some effect on the flow of other vehicles, especially at junctions.
Whether the use of mass transit bus schemes increases of decreases the value of the land and properties that have access points and are along the route is under debate by experts. It is perceived by the general public to be a less permanent transport investment than, for instance, a rail service, therefore limiting the impact on property prices. There is some evidence to suggest that this type of bus scheme increases properties prices, especially for commercial land use such as offices and for high density residential properties. Although residential properties close to large access points, such as bus stations show some indicators of decreased property price (Deng & Nelson, 2011).
Basso et al. (2011) analysed urban congestion management policies through numerical analysis of a simple model that: allowed users to choose between car, bus or an outside option (biking); consider congestion interactions between cars and buses; and allow for optimization of frequency, vehicle size, spacing between stops and percentage of capacity to be dedicated to bus lanes. He compared resulting service levels, social welfare and consumer surplus for a number of different policies and found that dedicated bus lanes are a better stand-alone policy than transit subsidization or congestion pricing. He further argued that from a policy that assigns part of road capacity to dedicated bus lanes, one expects the bus speed to increase considerably, given that buses are no longer trapped in car congestion. Car speed may increase as well, because cars may now avoid conflict with buses (including bus stop operations), but decreased capacity for cars may have the opposite effect. He found that indeed buses can go more than three times faster, while cars decrease their speed by two km/hour and this large change in speeds induces a sizeable increase in bus frequency (about70%) while decreasing the bus size from 100 to 80 people. It is interesting to note that the increase in frequency does not require an increase in bus fleet; the fleet needed is actually 80% smaller than in the base case. Higher bus speeds also induce a larger separation between bus stops, something that neither transit subsidies nor congestion pricing made. Overall, dedicated bus lanes induce sizeable changes in service levels, something that under mixed
traffic conditions do not happen. As a result of all these changes, bus demand increases importantly with respect to mixed- traffic conditions. Hence implementing dedicated bus lanes seems to be a policy that, from a social welfare point of view, can improve any existing situation. Mohring (1979) argued that bus speed was one of the most important attributes of the system and that as such, it should be one the central objectives of planners, if they want to increase bus patronage. This is why he considered that dedicating lanes exclusively to bus traffic can be a quite successful policy. Furthermore, he argued that dedicated bus lanes may be a tool equivalent to congestion pricing in achieving a change in modal split.
Pogun and Satir (1986) evaluated alternative bus scheduling policies for an exclusive bus lane and found that dispatching more buses into the lane without making route modifications