An articulated 'Phileas' bus travelling along a busway in Eindhoven, Netherlands.

Bus services are often seen by the travelling public, policy makers and planners alike as an inferior third rate public transport service which travellers fall back on when other services aren’t available. When planned and implemented effectively however, buses can provide a fast, frequent and efficient service which is attractive to commuters. The list of criticisms of buses is long, and there is no shortage of lobby groups and advocates who lobby for the laying of rails as the panacea to all their transport woes. While there are certainly cases where replacement of bus services with rail is warranted by passenger demand, this is not always the case. Somebody and MJJA have written recent posts about matching the appropriate modes to the required task. Rail solutions are often put up as solutions to problems where the answer in fact lies not in the vehicle used, but the manner in which the service is delivered. Given the right operating environment, buses can provide an alternative to trunk metro or light rail services with shorter implementation timeframes and lower implementation costs. 

Bus services as we know them

In many Australian cities, bus services involve poor frequencies (often half hour at best), old vehicles, contending with traffic congestion, poor signage and route information, poor passenger amenity (bus stops which consist of little more than a pole at the side of the road), poor interconnectivity and frequent stopping delaying journey times. Journeys are further delayed by the need for the driver to sell tickets to passengers. Buses are therefore said to be slow, irregular, uncomfortable and unpredictable. Furthermore, it is often claimed that passengers don’t catch buses because they “don’t know where bus stops are and they don’t know where the bus is going to go”. Conversely, it is said, trams and trains, give prospective travellers an idea of where the vehicle travels by virtue of the fact that the vehicles follow the rails.

Can buses play a mass transit role?

Let’s contrast this poor standard of services with the other extreme on the bus transport spectrum – the deluxe model in bus transport, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Based on the pioneering BRT model from Curitiba, Brazil, BRTs have been employed in other parts of Latin America and increasingly catching on in Europe and North America. Australasian bus systems which contain significant features of BRT include Brisbane’s South East busway, Adelaide’s O-Bahn, Sydney’s Liverpool – Paramatta transitway and Auckland’s Northern Busway. Queensland Transport is considering options for a Cairns Busway and a busway has been planned for Canberra.

How is BRT different?

The BRT model provides high frequency services, with high occupancy articulated buses carring up to 300 passengers. Vehicles can be gas powered, reducing emissions. Multiple doors allow for rapid boarding/alighting in the same manner that passengers enter and exit trams or metro carriages. The bus driver is relieved of the responsibility for selling or checking tickets as these are purchased at stations and various other outlets before boarding. Rather than stopping at frequent bus stops, BRT buses stop at bus stations which resemble light rail stops.

Busways can be created without the need for tracks or overhead cabling and can often be laid in less time than it takes to construct rail networks. Furthermore, because residents along major roads are already used to high volumes of traffic, new busways tend not to be subject to NIMBYism to the same extent that new rail or light rail lines are.

Ideally, BRT involves dedicated ‘bus roads’ or busways which separate buses from cars and regular traffic. Separating bus routes has the obvious advantage of removing buses from congestion – in the case of Brisbane’s South East Busway, buses zip along at 80km/h adjacent to the South Eastern Freeway, which in peak hour resembles a car park (a good depiction of this appears briefly in the video linked below). A journey from Eagle Plains to the city takes 18 minutes, compared to 45 – 60 minutes by car in peak hour. [1]. 

Achieving separation

Adeaide's O-Banh runs on a guided system designed to achieve a smoother ride. Running at top speeds of 100 km/h, it is among the fastest BRTs in the world.

Separation can be achieved by delineating existing lanes of traffic exclusively for bus use (in some cases by using physical barriers such as low curbs or in Chinese examples ‘fences’). More elaborate schemes involve the complete physical separation of busways from roads. This can be done by locating busways in the medians along arterial roads or freeways (eg. Curitiba, Brazil), in tunnels, elevated roads and overpasses (eg. Brisbane), or building new transport corridors (eg. Adelaide). Integrating busways with existing tram/light rail lines is also an option, however this option would be more prone to bunching.

Providing a dedicated, clearly legible bus route also removes the problem of “not knowing where the bus is going to go or where to catch it”. Moreover, it allows for trunk bus routes to be indicated schematically on metropolitan transit maps alongside trains, trams and light rail. This has been done effectively on Brisbane transit maps.

Bus stations

Bus stations are located at intervals similar to those of metro stations. Bus stations can provide ticket sale facilities, high levels of commuter information, real time departure info, and passenger amenities. When designed properly, bus stations enable buses to overtake those ahead of them and avoid the bunching phenomenon sometimes experienced by trams.

Significantly, bus stations can be staffed. Contributors at other forums have derided the suggestion that a ‘bus stop’ might be staffed at all, however staffing has significant potential benefits. Staff can sell tickets, undertake fare enforcement functions, provide customer assistance and information (particularly useful upon opening of new services), and ensure safety and amenity at bus stations. I understand that Brisbane bus stations and interchanges have begun employing staff at peak times to pre-sell tickets in order to expedite boardings and reduce dwell times.

Bus stations in Bogota have glass doors which open when the bus pulls up.

Off-road operations and network integration

Finally, busways enable integration between trunk services and local feeder bus services. This can be done by allowing feeder routes to enter the busway and travel along it to a final destination (CBD or a cross city destination), providing a single seat journey as is done in Brisbane and Adelaide (39% and 80% off system boardings respectively)[2]. Alternatively, feeder routes can be designed to connect with busway trunk services, allowing passengers to transfer to the busway. This is the case in Sydney’s Liverpool – Parramatta Transitway where no on-road bus routes directly access the busway. The latter option, with turn-up-and-go services can avoid the need for real time travel information, but may require high level of coordination with on-road feeder services if the trunk service is less frequent.

With these higher standards of service, one would expect sizable passenger volumes. In peak hour Brisbane’s South East Busway moves 15,000 people per hour. It has achieved a 56% increase in corridor ridership growth resulting carrying 26 million passengers a year. Adelaide’s O-Bahn carries 7 million pax/year, 4,500/hour in the peak, achieving a ridership growth of 25%, of whom 40% previously drove cars. [3].

A shopping list of options

BRT is the top of the range in bus services – the top shelf product. Like all transport modes, it isn’t without costs. An obvious one is higher staffing costs arising from higher numbers of vehicles involved. Another is the initial infrastructure cost compared with on-road buses. Installation costs vary depending on busway alignment, station intervals, and infrastructure such as tunnels and bridges. Brisbane’s South East Busway, which involved eight tunnels over 1.6km, a further 1.6km of bridges and viaducts, and 10 bus stations over a distance of 16 km (other sources report 20km) came in at a pricey >$24m/km [4]. There is no question that this was an expensive busway however much of this cost must be attributed to high quality station design, tunnelling and bridges. Adelaide’s O-Bahn cost only around $8m/km (in 1998 prices)[5]. Both of these were new busways built along entirely new alignments (although Brisbane’s follows an existing freeway). BRT costs would be reduced significantly when constructed on existing roadways, or within existing road reserves as has been done in South American and Asian examples. The quality of station design, amenities, and provision of real time travel information adds to the costs, as does the provision of elevators where bus stations are located above or below the ground.

Implementing low cost improvements utilising BRT principles

Even without full blown BRTs running inside the medians of major freeways and arterial roads, there are elements of BRT which can be incorporated into existing bus systems to provide better levels of service. Where opportunities exist, the busway separation concept can be partially applied at no cost, (eg. the use of freeway shoulders by buses in peak hour, as is done on Melbourne’s Eastern Freeway). Other initiatives may involve some cost. It is possible to cherry pick any one or more of these to provide improved services:

Buses share the tracks with trams in Mannheim, Germany.

- bus priority on the road network (eg. bus only lanes and priority signalling at intersections),
- improved traveller information,
- real time departure displays,
- improved cross modal integration,
- improved frequency,
- expedited boarding, and
- route legibility & identification.

In the interests of length I won’t describe each in great detail however I will briefly discuss the last two.

Expediting boarding and reducing dwell times is a no-brainer . This involves enabling passengers to enter/exit through all doors and relieving the driver of the ticket sale and enforcement function. Many European bus systems (particularly those in Eastern Europe) have significantly wider doors than Australian buses and operate much like Melbourne trams do – that is, passengers get on at any door and validate their ticket on board. Ticketing is not the driver’s concern. Some networks provide conductors, but most simply rely on random ticket checks by ticket inspectors.

Secondly – route identification. Without the need to construct busways, it should be possible to convey to (sub)urban dwellers the existence and connectedness of a bus network in the same way that tram tracks do through their presence.  What I have in mind is high visibility bus stops with matching on-road signage that indicates to potential travellers the presence and direction of a bus route. I’m not aware of any existing system, where cars and buses share lanes of traffic, which uses road markings indicate bus routes in a similar fashion to those used for dedicated bus lanes. I’m sure that some bright minds could come up with effective designs (like a continuous wavy line, or regular yellow polka dots) which could be used to indicate the presence of a bus route.

Another tool in the transport planner’s toolkit.

Buses are by no means a panacea. There will still remain a role for heavy and light rial. Buses need not however remain the poor cousins of trains, trams and metros with expectations of lower service standards. They can be an effective means of rapid mass transit and have proven to be effective in this role both in Australia and in other parts of the world. They should be considered as a viable option where the mode suits the purpose.

——-
References
[1] Currie, Graham. 2006. Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 BRT Special Edition. “Bus Rapid Transit in Australiasia: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures”. p12. (references – Cr Quirk, and Currie, p12. ) .
Cr Quirk, quoted on “”Making Things Happen with Rapid Bus Transit Part II”. Accessed at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEtf32Bu3Y&NR=1 on 21 Nov 2008.
[2] Currie, Graham. 2006. Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 BRT Special Edition. “Bus Rapid Transit in Australiasia: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures”. p7.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid. p5.
[5] ibid.

Useful Resources
1. “Go BRT” A ‘Fact Sheet’ with several good photos (PDF).
2. “Making Things Happen with Rapid Bus Transit“. YouTube video in two parts. (A look at BRT through rose coloured glasses, but several interesting images).
3. National Urban Transit institute “At-Grade Busway Planning Guide” – full of technical design info for all you technical folk.

Professor William Mitchell – Director MIT Design Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Wants to “democratize” public transport. Judging by later comments I think he was getting at “transport equality”, where everyone, everywhere should have equal access to public transport.

Focus on urban personal mobility. In this case, mainly battery-electric ultralight foldable vehicles (2 seats), although other light vehicles (eg scooters, pushbikes) also figured in his vision. The vehicles were about the length of a Smart car (2.7m) while driving and half that folded for storage.

Banks of vehicles, basically the same as the successful Velib bicycle system in Paris, which for those unfamiliar operates by having racks of bikes around 4-500m apart around Paris. You pay (free for 20 min, then sliding scale) and borrow the bike, credit card used as security. You drop off at another Velib bike rack close to your destination and pay (electronically) any applicable charges. In the ultralight vehicle instance, the vehicle bay also serves as a charging station (inductive charging). They’d probably operate much like the current “car-share” schemes but look like they’d really only carry passengers (no golf clubs, bulky goods).

Proposed fix to the “last kilometre” problem, ie work in conjunction with existing public transport infrastructure. However, Mitchell also proposed these vehicles work in the outer suburbs more like a “last 5 kilometre” solution, operating as feeder services to train stations and the like. My take is that the inner-city scenario, with many cross-town, random direction trips would keep the vehicles evenly distributed, but that in the outer suburbs you essentially end up with a “park and ride” situation in which the vehicles only get used twice to get to/from the station to the charging bay nearest your house/estate, and that feeder buses (minibuses?) might be a better solution.

Suggested that the batteries could be used to store intermittent energy (ie renewables) and sell back to the grid when required. However, he had previously indicated that the batteries on these ultralights were small in view of their intended usage to save weight and in light of this, depleting the batteries to balance the grid might detract from their primary function – I’d probably call this one “greenwash” right now.

====

Professor Rob Adams – Director, Design & Urban Environment, City of Melbourne

Adams indicated 80-90% of the infrastructure required by 2020 is already in place, such that we shouldn’t be expecting to build ourselves out of congestion/transport problems.

Suggested that viable PT requires a minimum density of 100-150 persons per hectare (pph), and cited Barcelona as a good example. Barcelona has around 7 storeys in built areas, but 40% open space and a density of 200 pph. This to me contrasts with Moreland in Melbourne, which is increasing substantially in density but has one of the lowest parkland/open space levels in the city, which will have long-term consequences for liveability.

Adams cites early planning failures for our “sprawl” but contends that growth along major transport corridors can help preserve the suburban block (which would be “green” – water tanks, solar panels etc). This would mean around 10% of the city would become high density (4-8 storeys) and the other 90% (current suburbia) let alone. This approach would permit an additional 2 million residents without any further subdivision (by which I think he meant land release…?)

High density housing proposed not just on train lines (as Melb 2030) but also tram and bus routes (eg Johnston St, especially east end). Indicated the investment had been made in the transport infrastructure and suboptimal outcomes were being achieved where they ran next to low density zones. He provided examples (the “wild west” – single dwellings on garden blocks) on tram lines within view of the city (eg 96 terminus, Route 70 Riversdale Rd east, etc). In my view it’s not surprising some of these are low density, as the time to CBD (assuming that remains the primary destination) is much the same as a train line more than twice the distance (these tram routes also have less opportunity than some for heavy rail interchange, meaning more one-seat trips and less passenger “recycling”).

Provided Curitiba as an example of what he would like to see – dedicated bus lanes, bus/tram combinations (ie extend buses past tram termini, but have them run on the tram route once they encountered it, alternating with the tram service. Wanted more buses pronto, thought heavy rail had too long a lead time to be useful right away.

Wanted no “big ticket” PT items – things you could take a photo from 4km away. Preferred distributed improvement.

=====

Dr Jago Dodson – Senior Research Fellow, Urban Research Program, Griffith University, Brisbane

Approached transport/ planning from the energy (read: petroleum) security perspective. Used VIPER (Vulnerability Index for Petrol Expense Rise) and VAMPIRE (Vulnerability Assessment for Mortgage,Petrol and Inflation Risks and Expenditure) assessments to gauge geographical vulnerability to fuel price rises.

High vulnerability in both cases were essentially areas with poor PT, low socio-economic status, and outer metropolitan / growth areas. Low risk were the inverse – old “rail” suburbs, inner Melbourne, PT-rich areas.

The high-risk areas were also indicated (through budgetary and planning constraints) as having the least capacity to switch to non-car modes of transport (ie walking, cycling, PT).

Dodson described the current urban structure as regressive and socially inequitable. Most 2030 “nodes” are planned for the inner PT rich suburbs, already low-risk on the VAMPIRE index. Asked the question of what to do in the outer suburbs, which are essentially being let be rather than integrating into a non-radial network of PT (many linked nodes – “network effect“).

He also noted that any gains from increased PT ridership/mode switch from cars through higher density housing could easily be offset by efficiency losses in that housing mode – current high density housing is built to very low standards (3 star, maybe 4 star efficient) and no legislative requirement exists to do any better (despite negligible cost difference to 7 stars).

Dodson suggested improved PT network planning could solve many urban transport problems but currently the focus is too much on infrastructure (built out of the problem) rather than planning.

=====

Professor Nicholas Low – Director, Australasian Centre for Governance and Management of Urban Transport, University of Melbourne.

He reviewed the proposed Brumby Transport Plan (ostensibly leaked) indicating a South Morang rail extension, 100 new buses, DART upgrade, Melbourne Central loop changes as proposed by Mees, Tarneit line, increase in Smart buses, and (medium term) Melton electrification.

He then contrasted these incremental improvements to the road projects expected to be announced – Frankston Bypass, Eddington road tunnel, Ring Road “Missing Link” via Heidelberg/Banyule Flats.

He quoted David Metz, a former UK transport planner who presided over massive roadbuilding during his tenure but now believes roads are not the answer. Bottleneck removal (used to justify most road building) can simply move the bottleneck somewhere else, and Metz believes bottlenecks in fact can play in important role in regulating congestion, and sometimes moving it can make things worse.

Australian data indicates despite massive road projects in the period 1991-2006, typical commute times have rises slightly for men (71 to 74 mins) and substantially for women (54 to 74 mins). $29bn of federal funds (our money!) was spent under the Auslink roads program under Howard, without any going to PT projects.

He believed greater Melbourne should have a Mayor – a metropolitan group that covered Melbourne proper, not just the limited Melbourne Council or State Govt (which presumably sees Melbourne as individual electorates rather than a cohesive whole). He talked about the utility of the political process – we elect Governments, not policy, and if the alternative Govt has the same policy we have no choice.

Since a dollar spent can’t be spent again he also orated on the need for proper consultation with the community on where it would like the money spent (ie on roads vs PT or whatever – a large road could provide a lot of supported childcare, for instance).

Low also discussed the costs of 2^nd/3^rd car ownership vs yearly PT - $6,400 (small car) to $16,000 p.a. (SUV) versus $1722.00 (Zone 1 and 2, 10% cheaper through PTUA!). He asked if the $6bn car industry assistance package would instead be better spent on more PT, giving people a choice between the more expensive car or cheaper PT ticket. However, Low did not discuss the ongoing cost of subsidy to PT required for this but clearly this begins to fall in the “PT as welfare” realm.

=====

Cath Smith - CEO, Victorian Council of Social Service, Melbourne

Indicated VCOSS is interested in the 15% of the population who don’t drive at all, and for whom roads can be considered mostly useless. Also costs of travel and “locationally disadvantaged drivers” (e.g. high-risk VAMPIRES).

Considered PT as an “essential service” along the lines of hospitals and schools. Claimed the current DDA compliance pace was “glacial”. While able-bodied myself I have seen a lot of improvement in this area and wonder if Smith is making ambit claims here.

She expressed a wish for improved co-ordination of door-to-door / community based transport (I assume mainly minibuses). I think she was getting towards the fact at the moment most of these are council or community group run and there is no overarching control to extract maximum efficiency from these operations (nor provide funding to do so). She also discussed the anomaly of school buses bypassing TAFE students, and although I can think of some reasons this occurs discriminatory PT does seem a contradiction in terms.

Advocates 7 day / ½ hourly bus services with emphasis on connections (trains), and mentions that many bus routes follow historical paths with little regard for current traffic movements, reducing their utility. Mentions as Peter Parker noticed recently that NightRiders now run more frequently than day buses in some locations.

Smith tried talking about speed vs modal connections, and again I think she was getting toward true end-to-end journey time here. With a ½ hourly bus service I’m not sure this is going to happen though…

With regard to climate change, she indicated that only 1.3% of carbon reduction is anticipated to come from modal shift (car to PT) and that this is going to need to be much higher for a decent emissions reduction.

Smith also believes that the current housing affordability debate should become an “affordable living” debate in which housing and transport costs are taken into consideration. In this context urban planning providing employment opportunities close to housing for a reduced commute is required.

=====

Respondents:

Robin Batterham (former Chief Scientist)

Believed common elements of the talks to be to provide mobility on demand in an equitable way, with emissions reduction.

Increase in population density required, increase spending on network to “fill gaps”.

Traditional PT is not the only way to provide mobility on demand. One of the other speakers earlier discussed Malcom Turnbull, who pushed legslative change that permitted him to use taxis and PT instead of a Govt car (19k p.a.).

Batterham mentioned we don’t just move people but also goods, but that more efficient people-moving usually leads to better goods movement. Wanted an increase in bike tracks.

Believed cars have their place but noted that Australia’s average fuel performance is the equal worst in the world; Europe’s is half ours. He noted legislative change could quickly remedy that.

David Eddershank (Kensington resident)

I’ve only a few notes from this one but noted that Eddershank discussed that when left to itself the private market does not necessarily deliver what’s best for livability or efficient use of space/resources. Highlighted the dichotomy of “Cranbourne Man” (apparently an ALP construct) whose #1 issue is roads (Cranbourne woman’s is services, but that doesn’t seem to rate) versus the inner-city “chattering classes” desire for more PT.

I’ve noticed that Peter Parker has posted a similar summary over at his blog while I’ve been writing this that covers the questions well so direct you there for them (although I’ve included some of their question responses into the speaker summary). Also Peter might have a few points I’ve missed and vice versa.

Dave

Problem:
Transport planning in Victoria so far has largely been based on each different service being provided by one technology, for instance urban transit with trams, metro transport with electric trains and interurban transport with diesel trains.

On top of this, as Melbourne has expanded and the need for different services has arisen, the technology has been “stretched” to perform two roles, often with mixed success. The result is often a compromise which compares badly with networks elsewhere which focus on either one role or the other.

Solution:

1. The system should be untangled, with separate services dedicated to each role.
2. The service should be made independent of the technology – for instance, interurban electric trains and metro trams should be introduced wherever the local conditions make them more feasible than current practice
3. With some alterations, different services can be provided using the same technology in the same corridoor – for instance, rail lines can carry both metro and interurban trains if expanded to four tracks. However four platforms are an unnecessary waste except at metro-interurban interchange stations.
4. Passengers should realise that changing modes during a trip (eg from a metro to an interurban service) is vital in the provision of high quality public transport. High frequency will ensure it is not a disincentive to travel.