Gobierno de Tecnolog´ıas de Informaci´on

1.- Acceptance

All the observed European BHLS-cases have reported an increasing patronage. This indi- cates a success in the transport market. These services usually find a good acceptance by the citizens everywhere. However, improved bus-systems always have to grapple with the com- parison to rail. Would rail have attracted more people than bus if all other parameters are identical? We have not been able to find an answer to this fundamental question, because in reality one system is never replaced by the other on a straight one-to-one basis. In Ober- hausen buses and trams do use the same infrastructure in a corridor of more than 6 kilome- tres’ (Public Transport-route). It is observed that passengers there do not make a distinction between bus and tram if both serve their destination – i.e. a passenger would not choose to let a bus pass by and wait for a subsequent tram. It is hard to imagine that there would be more passengers if the PT-route were served only by trams. This route is 100%-segregated

from road traffic, like the busways in Amsterdam, Cambridgeshire (guided busway), Nantes or Paris. The operation in these cases is similar to rail. This is why we presume that the ac- ceptance of bus comes close to rail if the operating conditions are comparable to rail. Re- maining slight differences in acceptance may arise from the vehicles, where the interior of buses seldom convey the generous design of a rail car. Counterbalancing, in many cases there is a higher proportion of seating on bus than on trams (especially Cambridge, Dublin with double-deck buses). This is line with findings made by researchers at ETH in Switzer- land or Sweden showing no significant difference in the use of public transport when com- paring trams with urban bus systems in comparable performance characteristics (speed, reli- ability, frequency, coverage).

2.- Quality of supply

Buses can operate on steep and narrow streets, allowing them to offer Public Transport- services to all or almost all settlement areas of a city. That is why the advantage of short and reliable travel times in a central section of the Public Transport-network can be devolved by bus to all areas of the agglomeration. In small and medium-sized cities a fast transport sys- tem to or through the city centre would not gain enough time to justify the loss of time when changing to bus on the outskirts. In those cases a central BHLS-section as a trunk route is considered to be an adequate and attractive solution. Such routes bundles the buses from the outskirts and lead them without transfers quickly and steadily into the city centers. Gothen- burg, Jönköping and Lorient are cities that have chosen this approach. They show that buses can combine attractive travel times with a high quality of supply for all citizens. Furthermore cost efficient vehicles and a need-orientated infrastructure may retain more resources for tight headways, which is also a component for a high quality of supply.

3.- Accessibility

BHLS is more than just fast and reliable transportation. Most of the examined systems also offer improved passenger information and barrier-free access to platforms and vehicles. Due to the progress in low floor design a slight raising of platforms provides good access to mod- ern low-floor vehicles to most people with disabilities. It is observed that this is also appreci- ated by the 20-30% of the population who have some minor difficulty in their mobility. For wheelchair users an additional ramp in the vehicle can be an acceptable solution. Access to bus stops is usually not problem in European cities, as large efforts have been made over the past two decades to achieve universal accessibility. Therefore buses can provide a very good accessibility also for disabled persons or families with strollers or prams.

If vehicle floor and platform have the same height (e.g. Amsterdam, Nantes, Rouen, Kent Thameside, Castellon, etc.), the access to the bus is 100% barrier-free. However, this design normally requires straight road sections for the stops.

4.- Security

Transport authorities and operators make large efforts to make passengers feel secure while travelling by public transport. It is increasingly common to have CCTV and security guards (especially in the evening times) in European public transport networks. Bus stops at the surface, a manageable vehicle and the addressability of the driver are good supporting fac- tors for security. This advantage of bus is also valid for BHLS-systems.

5.- Ticket price

In Europe, public transport is considered to be a service of public interest. It is expected to be usable for all population stratums. This requires affordable ticket prices. Considering the capabilities of local budgets, an economical infrastructure can help to keep ticket prices on a low level. Our WG4 analyses show that BHLS-projects can be realized with an accessable investment. In all observed networks the ticket price for using BHLS was the same as in normal buses, even though it is a premium product. Even if distinction in tariff is to be fore- gone, the cost efficiency of BHLS helps to keep down the ticket prices in the whole network. 6.- Rents

The improvement of Public Transport infrastructure may influence the private houses prices along the corridor. While restoration and renovation works are welcome for the authorities, an increase of rents or housing prices could be undesirable because of the social impacts. For

rail-systems this effect has been demonstrated through studies and empirical evidence. Due to lack of comparable research at the European BHLS sites, it cannot yet be answered if BHLS-systems show a similar outcome. In the observed cases we lacked surveys on the de- velopment of housing prices or rents before and after the implementation of BHLS. We strongly recommend that research is done on this subject.