Not seen in either picture is an enforcement camera which photographs vehicles jumping the lights when they are red. As the camera captures an image of the front of vehicle it will be possible to recognise the driver.
Clicking either the projector icon or this link will download a 16 second video clip named 'Schaffhausen-t-signals320.mpg' which shows the action being described.
Bus Lanes.
The most well known form of bus priority is the bus lane, which is a traffic lane that for all or part of the day has been restricted to buses only.
In Britain the law says that any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (plus the driver) can use a bus lane, unless the word 'local' is included with the bus 'pictogram' on the bus lane road signs, in which case only vehicles providing a local bus service can use it.
'With flow' bus lanes are for buses travelling in the same direction as the general traffic, 'contra-flow' bus lanes allow buses to travel in the opposite direction. The example pictured here comes from Piccadilly, in Central London, and it lets buses side-step the lengthy one-way system that the general traffic has to follow.
Usually bus lanes are located along the inside (kerbside) lane of the road as this is convenient for passengers at kerbside bus stops. However these bus lanes are often blocked by parked vehicles forcing the buses to divert to the next lane - a process which frequently causes delays to buses and other road users alike. As a contrast because they cannot switch lanes trams usually use the road centre as this keeps the kerb free, for instance for vans delivering goods.
There is no reason why bus lanes cannot be located down the middle of the road too although for safety reasons bus stops would then need to be equipped with island loading platforms as otherwise boarding & alighting the bus would require the passengers to walk out into the path of moving traffic (a potential safety hazard which sometimes happens on older tram systems, although new tram systems always ensure that a safer solution is found).
The principle constraint to central bus lanes and road-centre bus stops with island loading platforms is that many roads are just not wide enough! Whilst it could be possible to widen the roads by demolishing buildings and / or narrowing the footpaths these options would probably result in a public outcry of opposition.
The example shown here from Geneva, Switzerland, is from a road where the kerb lane is sometimes used by a street market, although on other days it is available for on-street parking. This is a two-way road with the other direction's traffic flow only having the use of one lane - not seen in this image is a delivery van which to avoid blocking that lane had parked partially on the footpath.
The other example comes from Krakow in Poland and it shows a two-way tramway where one direction's tracks have been paved to enable buses share the right of way. The sharing of tram rights of way is a simple solution - adding value to the land (roadspace) invested for the trams without negatively impinging on the other road users. Of course this is only a viable proposition in cities which actually have tramway systems!
Bus lanes as part of BRT (bus rapid transit) systems.
It is advantageous for Arnhem that it uses trolleybuses, which share the same clean air advantages as trams / light rail as this helps it maximise the environmental benefits of its investment in the BRT.
Having seen how the creation of congestion-free transport corridors is such an essential element in the success of light rail many cities globally have been looking at copying this as part of new BRT systems. In so far as busways are cheaper alternative to install than trams / light rail (for instance: the roadway will not need digging up and rails installing) then this is quite understandable, and for many routes - where passenger flows will not be sufficient to support the steel wheeled transports - this can be a very sensible option.
However it is most unfortunate that by choosing to ignore another of the passenger attracting features of light rail the transport operators are quite literally choosing for their system to fail environmentally. Only with trolleybuses can buses achieve the same environmental advantages as the light rail, thereby maximising the benefits of the transport corrider.
It it is known that there are people who simply choose to avoid motorbuses, not just for environmental reasons but also because the travelling environment (noise, vibration, smells) are usually less than favourable. So simply painting a few lines on a road surface and calling it a bus lane is just not enough if transport operators are serious about maximising the benefits / user attractiveness of their system.
It also helps when there are roads wide enough to create bus only lanes without creating urban gridlock - for many British cities this too is a challenge to be overcome. In Europe the creation of such transport rights of way are often coupled with other changes to road layouts to increase traffic capacity on alternative routes.
Also in Arnhem, a pedestrian crossing with a warning sign that flashes when a bus is approaching.
The examples from Rome, Italy, shows a roadway where a raised kerb physically segregates one lane for use by buses (and taxis). Note that this is a triple-carriageway road with parking allowed on the outer two carriageways only - although often vehicles also park on the intermediate footpaths too.
A variant of this used in other Italian cities (eg: Milan) sees the general traffic using wider outer carriageways and the public transport using the centre carriageway, which is two lanes wide. (not illustrated)
There is more on bus lanes and illegal parking on a dedicated Parking page whilst island loading platforms are looked at on the Stops and Stations page.
When choosing bus priority options
Are bus lanes always the best option?
This might seem a bizarre question, but in reality whilst most transport planners would say that the answer is a "no-brainer" the reality is often something else.
In June 2006, and after local elections, some local councils in London announced plans to remove a few bus lanes which in their views were not actually of benefit. This led to a lively discussion on an Internet-based forum where some of the members are bus drivers and / or otherwise involved in London's buses professionally. Whilst is not possible to copy exact words (to avoid breaches of copyright) it is possible to report on what was said.
Several people commentated on the (now former) bus lane on Chiswick Bridge over the River Thames in West London. This bus lane effectively reduced the roadway (for the general traffic) from two lanes down to one lane and was installed even though two busy roads fed into it. By closing this bus lane the traffic delays were so reduced that the bus time tables had to be re-written with as much as 10 minutes running time removed!
Another specific bus lane which was mentioned is eastbound at Catford Town Hall, which is a very busy inner city location bisected by London's South Circular Road (SCR). For those readers who are fortunate enough not to know the SCR this grandiose sounding title has been bestowed upon a hotch-potch of unplanned local (and often residential) roads, almost all of which are (at best) no more than single carriageway / two lanes per direction. Several bus drivers were "very keen" to see this 50 yard bus lane removed because by forcing two lanes of traffic to merge into one lane the traffic delays further back were "simply horrendous", often adding 30 minutes to journeys (a time period which was emphasised as being correct and not a typo!)
One bus driver talked of knowing quite a few bus lanes along the routes he drives which do not cause any kind of problem, but because traffic congestion at these locations is very rare so they do not serve any useful purposes either!
There was a general consensus that the primary "problem" with bus lanes which can and does justify their removal is that whilst the buses might be given a clear run over a certain section of road the delays to the other traffic (which has now been denied roadspace) are often of such severity that any benefits the buses might expect to gain are very seriously compromised by the very significant delays the buses experience before reaching the bus lane. Sometimes the best way to help buses travel without delay would be to help keep ALL the traffic flowing more freely - technically this is what local councils are supposed to be doing (as per their legal obligations) however the impression gained is somewhat different. The proliferation of traffic signals, the lack of ability to influence those signals favourably and road space reallocation (away from any form of road traffic) are all issues which harm bus transport.
Perhaps the one comment which speaks volumes suggested that the problem is that certain people get gold stars for the number of miles of bus lane they introduce, rather than for the amount of time saving for buses they manage to generate.
Reading these comments begs the two questions:-
[affirmative responses appreciated]
- Should bus drivers be consulted when bus lanes are planned & implemented?
- Since they are the people who are "on the front line" and therefore most experienced with respect to traffic congestion "hot-spots", possible solutions and the effectiveness - or otherwise - of any bus lanes, should their views be accorded even greater importance & respect than frequently politically motivated desk-bound transport planners & politicians?
Bus Lane Operating Hours
rush hours? all day? part day? weekends too? 24 hour?
Because bus lanes (on shared use roads) are often a compromise between the needs of different road users so often the hours of bus lane operation will vary from location to location, with the day(s) of the week and times of the day that the bus lane is in operation being (supposed to be) clearly marked on signs at the bus lane entry points. There is also a need for extra signs so that vehicles joining from side roads are properly notified of when the bus lane is in operation, but sometimes transport authorities ignore this requirement. But they still remember to fine those uninformed vehicle drivers if they enter a bus lane when it is in use.
However many drivers of other vehicles (especially cars) seem to either not be able to read the signs, too stupid to understand the signs or just too lazy to read the signs and avoid bus lanes all the time. Of course this is great for the buses but since the aim should be to help the buses keep to the time table then maybe there are times when traffic is such that priority measures are simply not needed.
As an aside another reason why the bus lanes are avoided, even when not active is because with very tough and unforgiving enforcement (often via means of remote surveillance cameras operated by cash-hungry organisations) if the car / van driver is unsure whether the bus lane is in operation they would rather not take a chance and end up with a fine. This often results in those drivers who do read the bus lane signs being able to drive legally along the bus lanes up the inside of a number of sometimes lengthy queues.
On the same Internet-based forum as above some bus drivers commentated on how (because of the way in which the remote surveillance cameras are used) vehicles turning left across bus lanes tend to stay in the main traffic flow until the last second, and when they do turn left they sometimes cut out infront of the moving bus - requiring it to stop "very quickly".
Bus lane woes...
This car wanted to turn left but was unable to do so because all the 'general traffic' lanes were filled with stationary traffic queueing to pass a busy traffic signal controlled junction.Rather than wait in the side road for space to become available (because if the driver did this it is possible that they would end up spending ages waiting for someone to let them in) the driver went as far as possible, in the process blocking the bus lane.
Bus lanes are not much use when the bus cannot even enter it!
The structure on the right is the ramp to the former Kingsway Tram Subway which was used by trams running via the Embankment, The Houses of Parliament and Westminster Bridge. The seven minute journey time is something which the present-day bus passengers can only dream of.
The concept of running buses underground is looked at in the next section.
The road junction in the photograph above has what is known as a "yellow box" where technically road users should not enter unless their exit is clear. The penalty for contravening this involves both a fine and penalty points adding to a driver's license. This applies to bus drivers too!
In London (and other cities'?) transport planners have been so zealous in painting road junctions with yellow boxes and "ringfencing" the junction by extending the area of the box to cover a far larger area than is really appropriate, that sometimes the exit has become so far away from the entrance that it is not possible to see the exit! Then they (the traffic planners) have started to use roadside surveillance cameras to prosecute otherwise innocent road users who inadvertently find themselves forced to break the law. At least once a taxicab driver appealed against his prosecution, and won, because the judge too decided that it was virtually impossible to avoid breaking the law.
The same internet based forum from which the bus lane comments (above) were sourced also discussed yellow box junctions and driver entrapment, with one person sharing a situation where a bus operator told London's transport planners that unless one specific box junction was altered so that their drivers were able to see the exit then it (the bus company) would instruct its drivers that instead of using "commonsense" they must blindly follow the law and never enter the box junction unless their exit is clear. Since the drivers were unable to see the exit this would mean that they would remained stopped at the box junction's entrance. Of course this would have caused traffic chaos, but short of a uniformed police officer telling them otherwise it would be the only legal way to comply with the letter of law!
Another bus driver told of an incident when a taxi driver performed a "u" turn at a traffic light junction with a yellow box, which resulted in the bus no longer being able to exit from the junction without fouling the yellow box.
Despite it not being his fault this resulted in a fine, which the bus company (his employer) paid quickly to benefit from the 50% discount and then docked the funds from the driver's pay.
Although buses benefit from remote surveillance cameras (& bus mounted cameras) being used to monitor bus lane infringements they are still subject to road traffic laws and this can / does sometimes result in bus drivers (along with other road users) being prosecuted for other traffic infringements.
Bus-only Roads
An alternative option to bus lanes is for complete roadways to be dedicated to buses. It could be said that giving buses their own right of way puts them on par with many of the more modern light rail systems, where shared use of the public highway, whilst possible, is usually minimised. However unlike light rail the bus will still need a properly made up road surface. (This does not apply to 'kerb guided' buses, a technology which is looked at below).
As with bus lanes, bus-only roads still need to be protected against abuse by unauthorised vehicles, although typically this will only be at junctions, and not along the entire length. In some cities taxis and the emergency services are also allowed to use bus-only roads.
As the image on the right shows, the public transport lanes are at least partially protected by the same CCTV (etc) equipment which is also used to detect vehicles violating the city centre restricted traffic zone. These are probably easier to see in the clickable larger image.
Bus-only roads are frequently major constituent parts of 'Bus Rapid Transit' (BRT) systems, these being enhanced urban transport systems that use rubber-tyred buses - and not steel wheeled trains & trams.
In much of Europe BRT systems are seen as solutions for the less busy transport corridors which need improving but do not justify the higher investment needed for steel-rail based transports. Frequently these will complement the cities' other existing rail based transports although there are a few cities which have installed them instead of steel rail based solutions.
Outside of Europe BRT systems have found favour in some of the less wealthy members of our global family of nations, where the required funds for investment in steel rail based transports are simply unavailable (especially South America) as well as Britain and Australia where the decision to use buses has been either commercially or politically motivated - for both financial and dogmatic reasons.
Images sourced from bus manufacturer's promotional material.
Image sourced from the free online "Wikipedia" encyclopædia (link to an external site which opens in a new window)
Australia.
Several cities in Australia feature busway systems, including Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth - although in the latter some sections of former busway are being converted to heavy rail.
By 2012 Brisbane plans to have a network of 5 busways, which will be in addition to an extensive suburban electric rail system. One of the bus-only roads which is already opened is the South East Busway, which is 16.5km in length and includes 2km of elevated roadway, 1630m of tunnel and 10 bus stations. For much of its length it is located along one side of a six-lane motorway. Although single track in each direction there are overtaking lanes at the stations. This allows express buses to pass buses making stops.
The first stage of Brisbane's Inner North Busway (INB) opened in February 2004, and in 2006 construction began of a second stage which will be routed in tunnels below the city centre and include two underground bus stations. Scheduled to open in late 2008 the INB extension will feed into the already extant large subterranean city centre bus station.
The image left shows the 'cage' (as seen from inside a bus) next to RCH (Royal Childrens Hospital) Herston Station on the Inner Northern Busway. The purpose of this wire mesh 'cage' is to protect the buses from the balls of a nearby golf course.
These images are by Aussie Bhoy, and were sourced from a thread named Mixed Brisbane Transport Pictures at the www.skyscrapercity.com group of forums. (link to an external site which opens in a new window).
Canada.
The Canadian Capital of Ottawa features an extensive and successful BRT Transitway. This is based on grade separated bus-only roads that by means of overpasses, bridges, and trench highways are located mostly either above or below street level, so that they rarely intersect directly with the regular traffic. The exception is in the city centre, where delays are commonplace. Buses which use the Transitway benefit from an ability to travel long distances without stopping for a single traffic light. Most sections of the Transitway have a speed limit of 70-90 km/h (45-55 mph) between stations, and 50 km/h (30 mph) in the station areas.
However with nearly 200 diesel buses per hour per direction travelling on the Ottawa Transitway's city centre section it is operating well over capacity. This has caused numerous complaints from residents and businesses about traffic disruption, noise and air pollution from diesel engines. No solution is in sight because even though the system was designed for conversion to light rail, the street-based city centre portion is not, due to the fact that it uses public roads and has just the one bus-only lane per direction. Furthermore, even if the busiest routes were converted to light rail there will still be many other bus routes which would remain as bus services and building an underground busway through Ottawa city centre has been deemed to be prohibitively expensive.
As an aside, Ottawa has been trialling the use of light-weight trains (as used extensively in Europe) as a prelude to a probable light rail line, but this is being seen as an option for a different transport corridor.
USA.
For many years Pittsburgh has been acknowledged as making the most extensive use of bus-only roads in the USA, although with ever increasing traffic congestion recent years have seen some other US cities have also started to build BRT systems too.
In all Pittsburgh's system comprises of three separate sections of busway. The 4.3mile South Busway is said to be the oldest operating busway in the USA. It is used by 16 bus routes which serve 9 bus stops. The West Busway is five miles in length, is served by 11 bus routes and features six stations. The Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway was built in two stages and now totals 9.1 miles in length. It is used by 34 bus routes, of which 31 are express routes that circulate within many communities and then benefit from a non-stop, traffic-free commute into Pittsburgh city centre. There are nine bus stations plus one bus stop. A distinctive feature of the MLK Jr. East Busway is that much of it is located alongside a very busy heavy rail right of way where the train and bus are separate but share the same overall transport corridor. Pittsburgh's system also includes several tunnels, including former railway tunnels now used by buses and a tunnel where the buses share a right of way with light rail services. Alas not having personally visited Pittsburgh and with there not being any copyright-free images of its busways on Wikipedia so at the present time it is not possible to show images sourced from here.
Whilst some of the other American BRT systems include sections of single carriageway bus-only road there are several systems where the buses use HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes on the normal highway which are restricted to vehicles with two (or for some locations three) or more than people in the vehicle.
Image courtesy of Bruce S. Cridlebaugh.
Click image or this link http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghW/0584-4475/mtwashingtonPAT_tun.htm to visit the website for more information and a larger image.
Another of the USA's high-profile BRT services is the Metro Orange Line in Los Angeles, California. Named after the many citrus trees that once blanketed the San Fernando Valley, this is Metro's only bus service which has a 'colour' name, although it is also known as route No. 901. Because of its special status the Orange Line is also the only bus service to appear on the Metro Rail System Map which depicts the region's network of light and heavy rail (steel wheel) transports.
The reason for the Orange Line's special status is that from the outset it was designed with many of the characteristics which usually feature on a (steel wheel) light rail system, such as a dedicated right-of-way, stations spread further apart than is usual for local bus services (typically one mile apart), platform ticket machines for faster boarding, park-and-ride facilities and other amenities. Part of the Orange Line's route was a conversion of a former railway, although as some of these images suggest, there is also some street running too.
The Orange Line also has its detractors, especially from the pro-light rail lobbies, who point out that in less than a year of operation the "Orange Line" busway pavement (ie: 'road surface' in British English) has become seriously rutted, deteriorated, and uneven, producing rough, uncomfortable riding quality for passengers and more wear and tear on buses. They also point out that by way of contrast, railway tracks tend to retain durability and smooth riding qualities for much longer.
Transantiago: A Disastrous implementation of a BRT System.
It is important that new high profile transport systems are implemented with the primary aim of adding value to the lives of the people who will use the system. Whilst no doubt this was the intended aim it is unfortunate that severe teething problems with the implementation of the Transantiago system in Santiago, Chile, has seen the very opposite result, with many commuters finding that the ending of through buses between their residential areas and places of work has resulted in journey times doubling.
The matter is highly contentious, but judging by comments from various media sources (including specialist bus transport media) it seems that the system was started prematurely, without construction of the BRT infrastructure (bus lanes / bus stops) having been completed and without there even being enough buses to carry the passengers who must now travel on 'feeder' buses from their homes to the metro or Transantiago BRT bus stations, where they need to change vehicles to complete their journeys. Apparently not only has the inconvenience resulted in significant public disturbances - with as many as 830 people arrested at one disturbance alone - but also because so many people have been constantly arriving late for work February and March 2007 saw the country's economy suffering lower than expected growth. As ever it seems that the people suffering the most are those living in working class areas, which suggests that the implementation of the new system was made without enough regard to the needs of many ordinary working people.- ie: the people upon whom the economic well-being of the entire nation depends.
The following text is dated to 1st July 2007 and comes from the English language page of the "Wikipedia" encyclopædia. It is hoped that this disastrous situation will improve 'very soon', and that other cities will take note to avoid similar situations arising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transantiago.
Transantiago is the public transport system that serves Santiago, capital city of Chile. It was introduced on February 10, 2007, replacing the previous chaotic system run by thousands of independent bus operators. The system works by combining local bus lines, main bus lines and the Metro (subway) network. It includes an integrated fare system, which allows passengers to make bus-to-bus or bus-to-metro transfers for the price of one ticket, using a single contactless smartcard.
Transantiago's implementation has been problematic. Some of the bus companies have not put out the required fleet in operation, making the bus headway irregular and generating large crowds and long queues outside Metro stations and bus stops. The fleet management software (which includes the use of GPS) has not been implemented. Segregated bus corridors have also not been constructed and "paid zones" have been improvised. The lack of trust by users in the bus system has overcrowded the Metro. There is also criticism of a lack of line coverage in the city's peripheral areas, which were well covered under the previous system.
Transantiago has also spawned Chile's largest class-action suit, as when a community leader discovered the new transit system did not run to his old place of employment - forcing him to change jobs - he united some 800 other commuters who had suffered similarly in an action claiming damages of US$38,000 each. In what is being seen as an intelligent and civilised way to protest (instead of just rioting), the legal action is not being done to become wealthy, rather it is about getting respect. The Chilean constitution assures the Chilean people of a right to be able to live in dignity and in a clean environment, and under Transantiago this is not happening.
Although the focus is primarily on the transports per se - and not BRT as a transport technology - the following two links lead to pages with more information about South American and European enhanced high-capacity bus systems. Curitiba in Brazil , New-era High-tech buses..
Bus-only Roads in the UK.
Although Brazil is said to be the first country to have a reserved lane busway system in a large city, the town of Runcorn, Cheshire, can claim the invention of this method of transport.
Runcorn was one of the post WW2 'new towns' which was built around an existing rural community and unusually for the UK the provision for a bus-only road network was included in the design blueprint. It is 14 miles [22km] in length and is shaped like a 'figure-of-eight' so that it serves most of the town's residential & industrial and 'crosses' at the town centre, where there is a short elevated section of busway. Housing and employment locations are distributed such that 90% of the working population is within a 500-metre or five minute walk of the nearest bus stop, with the stops being about ¼ mile apart.
The busway is mostly one lane each way and apart from a section of a couple of miles to the west of the town is fully segregated from other traffic. The road widens at bus stops to permit overtaking.
Many people see buses as having a 'down at heel' image, being solely for those people whose transport options will not extend to anything else. The Runcorn busway has not helped in countering this perception, as it has been subject to extreme vandalism (especially at bus stops) and general neglect. This helps explain why many promoters of other British BRT systems are so keen on being proactive in trying to create and maintain high quality transport operations. As they know, whilst very desirable, congestion free private rights of way are not the whole story.
The North Kent (Thameside) Fastrack.
Commencing services on Sunday 26th March 2006 'Fastrack' is a British based BRT system which is based on the creation of brand new bus-only roads, although in places it also uses the ordinary public highway (depending on where - with and without bus lanes). Ultimately planned to feature four routes, 'Fastrack' links several towns and other major traffic destinations just south of the River Thames in North Kent, this being an area which the national government would like to see benefit from greater development as a way of reducing the pressure for residential building in London. What happens to areas alongside the River Thames when global climate changes results in sea levels rising is a different issue.
The ethos behind Fastrack is to provide a transport of a quality that is midway between the train and the bus (ie: 'better' or 'higher' than a normal bus service - more like a tramway) so there is a strict ban on any other bus services from using the newly constructed dedicated bus-only roads. This ban even extends to London's famous red buses which serve the nearby Bluewater shopping centre. One reason for the ban might be because under the British system of bus deregulation this is the only way that the system's backers can control the quality of the vehicles being provided. (The London buses can be banned because Dartford is in Kent, which is outside of the protected 'London' bus area).
In its initial stages Fastrack uses normal single deck buses which were bought by Kent County Council with funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Sustainable Communities Plan. It is anticipated that as traffic increases so higher capacity (and possibly distinctively styled) articulated buses will become financially viable.
However, despite being a tagged bus the wasted time spent waiting for the traffic signals to change meant that it would still have been faster to enter the roundabout via the normal carriageway - and not the bus lane. (Seen off-peak, when traffic was minimal).
The inset shows how the bus lane sign includes the word 'local'.
At some locations there are additional plates which quite clearly specify that the bus-only roads are restricted to Fastrack buses only.
These comments may not be what some transport industry professionals, transport planners, transport operators, politicians or transport advocates (lobbyists, etc) want to hear but it is what they NEED to hear, and hopefully bear in mind. It is understood that back in the 1990's a Fastrack type scheme was mooted to use light rail / trams, however no doubt knowing how the British govt. is so very keen on buses as a solution instead of trams so this is why the system has ended up as a rubber-tyred system. However it is still a matter for conjecture why, if the planners had been really serious in wanting something 'better' than an ordinary bus (which is effectively what the buses used here are) then why did they not adopt the one solution which would have retained the same 'clean air' attributes which so many advocates suggest is one of the tram's primary features? This would have been achieved by using trolleybuses. With trolleybuses Fastrack would have been making an environmental statement showing how buses really can be as clean as both trams - and the 3rd rail electric trains in North Kent. This would also have had the positive side effect of creating a true BRT showpiece which would have boosted the public's view of entire British bus industry. It is also a matter of surprise that given the strong desire to control which vehicles access the bus-only roads (and despite the systems' Fastrack name which sort of implies a fixed infrastructure track or roadway) these are just ordinary roads, albeit with a local buses only restriction - and not kerb guided busways, a solution which would have also physically prevented unauthorised access and provided a physical symbol that also demonstrates a long term commitment to the bus service - as described below |
Elsewhere in Britain
A 'North Thames' counterpart of Fastrack is proposed for the Thameside regions in South Essex. Provisionally known as SERT (SouthEast Rapid Transit) it is led by Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Essex County Council and Thurrock Council on behalf of Thames Gateway South Essex partnership, which is masterminding the regeneration strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex. With global climate changes and the possibility of sea levels rising in mind the wisdom of encouraging people to invest / live in a coastal area beggars belief. OK, this is not (yet) a transport related issue.
In Swansea, South Wales a 10 vehicle fleet of the pink and purple livered StreetCar buses is being introduced on a high profile BRT system. Expected to cost £14 million the proposals are to create a tram-like 'high quality bus network' which will use a mix of private right of way and shared use of the public highway, including some bus lanes, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes plus, where required, other bus priority measures. Marketed as the Swansea Metro this BRT scheme is a partnership between the City & County of Swansea and First Cymru Buses. It is being funded by the Welsh Assembly Government and the European Objective One programme. To avoid too much duplication the StreetCar buses are looked at in greater detail on the Hi-tech New-era Hi-tech buses page.
The innovative guidance system is more fully looked at further down this page.
