BRT appears to be less expensive to build and operate than tram systems but can it really approach the performance level of a tram system and what is the environmental performance of comparable systems?This paper reports systematic research on these issues, particularly relating to where an urban transit system seeks to attract discretionary car users. A model has been developed to compare the implementation, operational costs and environmental impacts of a comparable tram and high quality guided BRT system. This models a UK situation, but draws upon information from elsewhere in Europe and North America. The design of the BRT system delivers equivalent performance to trams in capacity and passenger experience.This 'equivalence' model shows that the capital costs of the high-spec BRT system are two-thirds those of tram. This is less of a cost saving than is often claimed, suggesting that, in practice, BRT is built to a lower specification that tram systems. Operational costs do not significantly differ. Using hybrid-engine BRT vehicles, CO 2 emissions are similar, BRT has lower PM 10 emissions, but NO x from BRT remains higher than for trams.Although the cost differences for equivalent systems are less than is often claimed, there are substantial benefits in the flexible development of BRT, with it less vulnerable to variations from forecast ridership numbers, and development can be split into fundable stages, growing the business case for incremental upgrading. High-spec BRT can to be the new tram, but the 'value for money' case for BRT should not be at the expense of quality and transport planning impact. The demise of Light Rail and emergence of Bus Rapid TransitThe development of new light rail systems in the U.K. has all but ceased after the construction of a handful of large city schemes. Only Edinburgh is now seeing the construction of a new tram system, and this is beset with serious programme, project overrun and overspend issues (Foster, 2011). There are some extension projects underway to existing tram systems, including Nottingham (NET), Birmingham (Midland Metro) and Manchester (Metrolink), but these are exploiting the existing investment in their initial systems.A number of schemes have failed in the planning stages, including Liverpool, Leeds and South Hampshire. In the wake of this, a UK National Audit Office report (NAO, 2004) concluded the failings of light rail to be: 2• Too costly when compared to buses • Existing schemes financial performance is poor • Local funding is necessary in addition to central government funding but is difficult to obtain • The planning timescales are excessively long These points were picked up in a recent review by Hall (2011), who compared the UK institutional and funding context to that of France, with its plethora of light rail schemes successfully implemented even in quite small urban areas.Faced by this difficult institutional and regulatory context for new tram schemes, guided and higher-technology bus-based systems have seen growing popularity. Gui...

No abstract

Recent developments in the light rapid transit sector have introduced transit modes that are attempting to imitate the performance of others, e.g. buses with tram-like characteristics. The boundaries between existing definitions of what is a bus, tram or train are becoming blurred. For transport studies and practice this requires a review of how we define modes. This is not just a matter of semantics, but has safety and competition regulation implications for system operators. This paper proposes a structure to produce rail-and bus-based transit mode definitions and typology that are appropriate for modern use. A decision tree is used to classify and define the transit modes as guided-bus, trolley-bus, light rail and tram-train and is provided with example systems. The paper provides a robust definitional framework that allows transit system promoters, operators and other interested parties to have a consistent basis of reference when specifying and comparing rapid transit systems.

Malicious code in the form of computer viruses, worms, trojans and spam bots represents a most dangerous and costly threat to fully interconnected networked information systems. Infected Web pages can seriously compromise client machines and networks. Infected electronic messages, commonly sent in the form of e-mail viruses, may not only damage individual machines but may also cause serious denial of service damage by flooding networks. Socially engineered messages in the form of phishing attacks can cause a general lack of confidence in electronic commerce. Conventional approaches to these problems focus on identifying legitimate messages, which is not always an easy or obvious task. Validating the identity of an electronic communication is a fundamental problem in the modern wired world.The aim of this paper is to highlight the problem of authenticating the identity of electronic communications and to demonstrate an extra layer of protection with respect to e-mail systems, whereby attacks based upon the falsification of identity can be detected and eliminated with minimum impact on the system.

Companies are increasingly dependent on modern information and communication technology (ICT), yet the successful adoption of ICT systems stubbornly hovers at only around 50%, adding disappointment to business losses. Trust (both inter-personal and technology-related) has significant explanatory power when it comes to technology adoption, but only as part of a systematic methodology. Therefore, understanding more fully the interaction between human process and technology by adding the richness of socio-technical considerations to the design process of ICT systems should significantly improve adoption rates. At the same time, trust-based design has to demonstrate the (often neglected) business value of trust. ‘Designing for trust’, discussed in this chapter, is a design framework that consolidates trust governance and security management. Trust governance is a complete proposition that makes trust relevant to business practices, including the design and deployment of ICT systems. Trust governance incorporates the business justification of trust with an analytical framework, and a set of relevant tools and methods, as well as a maturity model. This chapter discusses how ‘designing for trust’ leverages trust governance into the design practices of ICT systems by complementing security-based methodologies, demonstrating the value of this approach.