Author Topic: Cambridge Busway  (Read 2917 times)

Offline Streetdeck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 9
  • -Receive: 13
  • Posts: 140

Offline TCD813

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1406
  • -Receive: 209
  • Posts: 2331
  • Regards, Richard.
    • All 'manor' of stuff on my Twitter A/c
Re: Cambridge Busway
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2011, 06:25:09 PM »
Whilst others are celebrating the success of the busway, Cart Iron remain as brittle as their name implies...

Quote from: Tim Phillips quoted in the BBC Cambridgeshire article
Tim Phillips, from pro-rail group Cast.Iron which campaigned against the busway, said: "I can't deny that a bus riding on a concrete gutter works, but it doesn't mean it's a transport success."
He said the group still believed reinstating a disused railway track between St Ives and Cambridge, as well as creating a new bus service, would have been the best solution to transport congestion in the county.

Or, to put his remarks in a seasonally appropriate way: "Bah! Humbug!"
TCD813? The reg of a Southdown Motor Services, Northern Counties bodied, Leyland Titan PD3/4 FH39/30F (popularly dubbed 'Queen Mary') from the late 50s.
There's all 'manor' of stuff on my Twitter A/c.

Adam Dowling

  • Guest
Re: Cambridge Busway
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2011, 07:11:26 PM »
Yes, they could have rebuilt the railway, but it.............

..........would have cost more, in terms of rolling stock and construction costs. (never mind the additional cost of increasing capacity!)

..........wouldn't serve the City Centre, Trumpington P&R or Addenbrookes.

Just what part of these points doesn't make it into Mr Phillips head?  ::)

Offline barryb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 138
  • -Receive: 121
  • Posts: 1318
Re: Cambridge Busway
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2012, 02:49:58 AM »
A "getting things into someone's head" statement is inappropriate; you stated an opinion, and parts of it are dubious, disputable, or of partial relevance.

a) is not really at all true.  The railway would have cost more than the Busway was supposed to, but less than what it actually did.  Further, comparable rail projects currently have a great record for coming in on or closer to time and on or closer to budget, and the most recent re-openings are showing that the optimism bias being set against rail passenger projections is inaccurate. 

Stirling - Alloa is a very comparable project, and achieved a first year result of over 400k passengers against a prediction of closer to 150k.  Ebbw Vale, another comparable project, is getting over 600k passengers a year against a prediction of closer to 250k.

The success story claims for the Busway don't stand a lot of scrutiny.  The passenger figures are nowhere near target, and the monthly figures and the date of the 1millionth journey betray a steep fall in usage and even worse performance against target if you disregard month 1 and extrapolate the remainder.

Further, the comparison figures being used to claim success are invalid to the point of false.  It is not valid to compare former Huntingdon - Cambridge services with a service that has had a number of improvements (frequency doubled along part of the route / extra day of operation) that don't directly relate to the busway, and it is particularly invalid exclude the 6 and 7 from the previous figures, especially when the northern part of the former 7 service to some busway catchment areas has been halved. 

If they want to compare bus use before and after they need to compare all the services on the routes before with all the services on the routes after.

b)  Use of the southern stretch of the busway is no claim to success; massive infrastructure investment for a 20 min interval service, during daytime, six days a week, and where the infrastructure is incapable of taking park and ride and longer distance services (13/26) that it ought to be ideal for is actually pretty dire.

It works, but while it hasn't failed it also hasn't had it's main tests of time and durability that would allow it to claim success. 

Offline Worm22002

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 154
Re: Cambridge Busway
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2012, 08:57:36 PM »
With all the stops now on the track, would the train be able to do the northern section in 20 mins (timetabled) or 16 mins when running late?

Offline Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 22
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Cambridge Busway
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2012, 09:38:29 AM »
With all the stops now on the track, would the train be able to do the northern section in 20 mins (timetabled) or 16 mins when running late?
No, but neither can we ;)

Offline Elsworth Fox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6
  • -Receive: 25
  • Posts: 219
Re: Cambridge Busway
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2012, 10:42:40 AM »
The problem with the railway option is, as it has always been, it doesn't serve anywhere well.  For the majority of St. Ives and all Huntingdon residents, access to the station would mean either using a car, or, if fit, cycling. 

At the Cambridge end, most would be reliant on some other mode of transport to reach their destinations.  The real problem for commuters would come on their evening return journey.  In order to be sure of making their connection, those from central Cambridge would probably have to leave between 30 and 40 minutes before the train departure.  The overall journey time for anyone travelling between Cambridge and the residential part of St. Ives could be in the order of 1 and a half hours.  This would be much slower than bus services via the A14, which would have continued if the rail service had been provided.

As to passenger numbers, the estimates were based on Northstowe being built.  Although it has been much delayed, much longer than the Busway, it now appears that some development is going ahead.  It should be noted that Northstowe would have been very poorly served by a reopened railway.  It would seem likely that the number of houses would  have been much smaller if dependent upon a railway.