Conclusion

On decision and project management issues

The importance to plan simultaneously transport investments and development and urban and/or town planning have been highlighted (Lorient, Nantes, Zurich, Lund, Jönköping, Almere, Madrid, etc.). The BHLS success stories are seen where town and country planning, land use and transport planning, and investments are tackled together and simultaneously. It is important to involve politicians and other decision takers at an early stage. We have seen that successful BHLS projects require extensive dialogue and engagement with stakeholders. This can sometimes be a lengthy process, but experience shows that it does yield good re- sults.

The issue of selecting the optimal transit technology and priority concept is fundamental to both system effectiveness and stakeholder acceptance.

As a mode, the bus appears well-adapted to progressive expanded urban zones (e.g. Almere in the Netherlands, the Fastrack project South-East of London). It can be adapted to different situations in terms of demand, with bi-articulated buses or trolleybuses, as in Hamburg, Utrecht or Zurich.

BHLS has a highly promising market in Europe. It is deployed in cities, medium-sized con- urbations, as well as in the outlying zones of the biggest metropolitan areas (e.g. Madrid, Paris) We have observed that the busiest BHLS systems in Europe (Paris TVM, Amsterdam Zuidtangent, Hamburg Metrobus, Madrid Line 27) operate in the range of 30,000 to 66,000 trips per day and for volumes in the range 1500 to 2500 passengers per hour per direction, for one line.

To date, cities have opted for tramway to meet capacity requirements both within and above the current range of BHLS. There are numerous factors which are mentioned for this choice, such as the capacity requirements, the labour and operating costs associated with buses, width constraints in urban areas, opportunities of existing infrastructure, intermodality with the existing network, funding capacity, forecast of land use evolution,… There is then clearly an overlap in the “capacity range” of tramway and BHLS market. Moreover, it re- mains possible but very rare that BHLS can reach significantly higher capacities in Europe; the case of Madrid is an exception, with very specific configurations: in the heaviest motor- way section, 44 small bus lines carry all together 112 000 passengers a day, around 190 bus/ hour that makes around 8 000 passengers / hour, but there are no stops on this common sec- tion.

Some BHLS projects have been implemented on the basis that they could be converted to tramway at a later date, either when the demand requires it, or when there is funding avail- able. In a few cases, core elements of the BHLS such as stations and the running way pave- ment are constructed to tramway requirements from the outset to facilitate later conversion (e.g. Zuidtangent in Amsterdam, Lund in Sweden, Nantes Busway). This indicates an inter- esting strategic approach: first, to induce and/or increase ridership and second to adapt the transit technology (according to the context the changing of the system technology can create some difficulties during the interruption of the line for additional works).

BHLS within the PT network

In Europe a trend is observed toward a much stronger hierarchisation of bus lines within network. This is mainly due to a combination of financial reasons and intermodality trans- port policies with heavier transport modes, but also to make the bus network more “easy to use”.

In some cities, BHLS is a core part of the multi-modal network (Nantes, Rouen, Utrecht) showing the same importance as some rail systems

In other cities, BHLS system can be a transit mode in its own right; a new and relevant in- termediate capacity system for metropolitan areas as complementary mode to their

(re)structured network (Paris TVM, Hamburg, Madrid Line 27, Stockholm, Zurich); or an appropriate solution for smaller urban areas as the backbone of their network (Lorient, Jönköping, Lund, Castellón )

In general, BHLS in Europe has been implemented within the existing institutional and regu- latory frameworks. Contractual change is not required to implement BHLS systems.

Current practice is that the same prices are charged for BHLS as for other buses. To date, no European BHLS has implemented premium pricing or other fares differentiation. All the BHLS studied prices are included into network fare integration.

On some infrastructure strategies

Many BHLS schemes have multiple routes running on common trunk sections. They serve different communities as required, many originating away from the BHLS facility, and then overlap on the common section to give the point of highest capacity/throughput requirement. The main advantage is to limit the number of transfers required, as transfer is well known to be a significant deterrent for passengers. A secondary advantage can be to simplify the sta- tions which would otherwise be the main transfer points.

Some systems share the tramway platform with Buses or BHLS as in Stockholm, Gothen- burg, Oberhausen and Zurich. This achieves greater utilisation of the street space allocated to public transport – especially in the central areas where space is scarce - while also allowing easier transfers between these modes.

In 14 of the BHLS systems visited, we observed that the host environment and/or urban streetscape have been improved. This demonstrates that BHLS can contribute to urban en- hancement.

We have observed that BHLS is normally designed to facilitate cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists are normally accommodated in adjacent cycle-lanes to avoid conflict with the buses. At some BHLS systems, there are designated stops where parking facilities are provided for bicycles (e.g. Cambridge, Amsterdam, Almere and Lund). Pedestrian facilities are almost always an integral part of BHLS, and in some cases are significantly improved by general streetscape upgrading associated with the BHLS (e.g. Oberhausen, Twente, Lorient, Cas- tellón).

Some BHLS schemes can accommodate multiple routes/lines with a high collective vehicle throughput (e.g. QBC in Dublin, Purmerend, Madrid BusVAO). However, it becomes in- creasingly difficult to manage the services if the buses cannot easily pass each other at stops, or if there is insufficient priority at traffic signals. For individual routes, headway control becomes more difficult at headways of five minutes or less, and operators often consider that three minutes headway is the limit for individual routes.

On quality matters

First of all is important to clarify that high level of service does not necessarily mean high

level of technology. Further, the High Level of Service needs to be considered for the entire

passenger journey. We can use two different approaches to set a definition: level of service or quality. Whichever approach is used, the services attributes must be explicitly formulated and the target services/quality should respond to the travel demand and to the customer pref- erences and priorities.

The scheme promoters identify the factors that are in need of improvement: e.g. regularity / punctuality, frequency, quality management, commercial speed, etc. The characteristics and performance of the BHLS reflect these requirements.

Frequency, regularity and punctuality are essential to provide high level of service. These attributes are typically the main KPIs (with different ways of calculation) used by manage- ment boards and in service contracts.

Personal behaviour is changed in favour of Public Transport when the new passengers find advantage compared with the use of car. Reasons include time and/or cost, easy to use, reli- ability, especially when there are strong policies in favour of public transport – e.g. parking restrictions into city centres as seen in many BHLS examples studied in this COST Action.

Observed European practice uses reliability targets in the range 80-95%. The European Norm CEN 13816 proposes a value of not less than 80%. Experience with BHLS demon- strates that a target of 95% of passengers “having a bus on time” is achievable. This is also important for managing an efficient high frequency service (avoid bunching), and consequently reach the high capacity expected.

Acceptance of BHLS by the citizens is usually good. BHLS can provide high quality of supply, accessibility and security in the same way as tramways.

On observed benefits

Regarding the ridership increase, a wide variation from 15% up to 150% has been observed, although it can take several years (3 to 4 years) until results are significant.

The case of Jokerilinja (Helsinki), a long peripheral line, is impressive, with an increase of 150% within 5 years.

In the case of Hamburg (increase by 15% within 3 years) this was achieved on an existing busy line when better branding and improvements were made.

The ridership increases arise from a combination of several factors, improved reliability, shorter travel time, increased volume of service, better image and marketing, and focussed car constraint policies. There is not an observed direct relationship with the percentage of Right of Way, even if it is often the fundamental factor.

Data has been collected highlighting that BHLS schemes can achieve high modal shift rates from the car, from 5% up to 30%. This depends on the specific context. The previous rates of PT use were already high in Sweden and Netherlands whereas the previous rates of car use were high in France, Ireland and Spain.

On road regulation improvements

To provide priority for BHLS in its right of way, on the same basis as tram. Where relevant, to adapt road traffic regulations and to harmonize signage for tramway and BHLS priority. On other words, to give to the bus the same priority rules that the tram have.

To improve the EU bus regulation for BHLS features – e.g. for bi-articulated buses, for doors at both sides, for bicycle racks at the vehicle-front (as in USA/Canada)…

On research issues

After a 4 years “study tour” in European cities, that have implemented a BHLS system, lots of data have been collected, provided either by transport operators/authorities or by specific own COST BHLS enquiries. Some points have been investigated more deeply by means of 7 STSMs.

Nevertheless, there is still a need of further data collection, feedbacks and research, mainly on these different items regarding:

- Evaluation of benefits and impacts of BHLS, beyond technical and ridership per- formance.

- Design and optimisation of BHLS. - Quality / regularity measurements.

- Improving / assessing the system approach quality: - BHLS market knowledge.

- Financing mechanisms for BHLS.

- Joint research between EU research on BHLS and North / South American research on BRT.