Refining light rapid transit typology: a UK perspective

Hodgson, Paul; Potter, Stephen

doi:10.1080/03081060.2010.494029

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter two represent a definition of Bus Rapid Transit (for details of this method see Hodgson and Potter, 2010). This typology method includes three tests that were derived from the system definition exercise to enable a bus-based system to be determined as being equivalent to light rail.…”

Section: Defining Equivalencementioning

confidence: 99%

Can bus really be the new tram?

Hodgson

Potter

Warren

et al. 2013

Research in Transportation Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Defining Equivalencementioning

confidence: 99%