My last post explored the merits of BAM. For those who missed it, a BAM (bus tram) attempts to combine the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of buses with a ride-quality that is normally associated with light rail. The BAMs key attributes include: electrical motor, advanced guidance systems, and high vehicle capacity.
The BAM avoids the need for expensive overhead wires and steel tracks, which saves big on capital costs. I also think that BAMs are more well-suited to Auckland conditions than traditional LRT technologies – mainly because BAM’s rubber tyres help it to get up hills better than steel wheels can. This additional traction also reduces the amount of work required to fix up road geometry when retrofitting BAMs into existing corridors.
From what I can tell there are two BAMs currently being developed; one is the Phileas (developed by a Dutch company called APTS) and the other is eBRT (developed by the German company Siemens). Only the Phileas is actually up and running (illustrated below) so most of this post focuses on exploring this technology in more detail.
The Phileas was first trialled in Eindhoven back in 2004. Since then it has been rolled out in Douai (France) and Istanbul (Turkey). A detailed appraisal published in the TEC magazine in 2007 asked whether the Phileas was equivalent to light rail and concluded (para-phrased):
To all intents and purposes, yes. From the perspective of the passenger, the Phileas vehicle and to some degree the infrastructure does have the look and feel of a tram system. The guidance technology, when working, will provide a high quality ride-experience and interfaces to the stops, very much in the guise of light rail as if working on fixed running rails. It does have the apparent capability to provide many of the benefits potentially without the same degree of capital investment.
The combination of advanced guidance and all-wheel steering makes the Phileas extremely nimble: It can “float” side ways in quite an unnatural but cool fashion, as illustrated in this video “Docking to platform.” So not only does the guidance keep the Phileas running along magnetic “tracks” (providing a better ride quality and more certainty for pedestrians), but it can allows the Phileas to quickly and precisely dock at platforms.
But what about cost-effectiveness? Capital costs of developing the Phileas in Eindhoven clocked in at about EUR 4 million per kilometre, which is about one-third to one-half of the costs of similar light rail projects developed around the same time (e.g. Nottingham). Operating costs are apparently 30% less than a standard bus, on a per passenger basis, although the cost savings would have to be even higher if the Phileas’ guidance systems allowed for driverless operations.
But the development of the Phileas has not been trouble-free. In Istanbul, for example, a combination of high passenger loadings (300 people on vehicles designed for 185) and steep terrain showed the vehicles were under-powered. But none of the problems encountered thus far seem terminal, rather they are the types of problems that tend to crop up when trying new things in new places. Phileas vehicles still operate along Istanbul’s more well-graded sections (photo credit).
So I have to ask: Why don’t we try to bring a BAM to Auckland? More specifically, why doesn’t Auckland request expressions of interest from companies to develop a demonstration BAM on one of our more sensitive, high-demand corridors? One potential corridor that immediately springs to my mind is Tamaki Drive (possibly helping get over the snob stigma attached to buses). Then in ten years time we might be able to start a large scale roll out.
The aim of the proposal would be to allow companies to demonstrate the advantages of their technology over an extended period of time. Phileas is not the only company in this space. Obviously Siemens will be casting about for cities to run demonstration eBRT projects. And there may well be others that I don’t know about. I have no idea what sort of industry interest could be drummed up though some form of competitive public process, but it would be interesting to see.
One would expect that the capital and operating costs would initially fall on the provider so as to encourage them to manage risks, but these could then be transferred to the Council over time – provided that the technology demonstrated its worth. At the conclusion of the trial (say 5 years) companies would reasonably compensated for costs incurred.
I personally think it’s time for Auckland, and other large cities, to mature beyond simply being a passive receiver of public transport technologies. Through careful and considered (competitive) demonstration projects, Auckland could help stimulate the timely development of transport technologies that better meet our needs than either buses or light rail.
I’d be interested in hearing your ideas …
Processing...
I’m having trouble with the whole concept. If you run one of these on a segregated system, such as the Northern Busway, then it is a guided articulated bus. Is there much advantage over a bog-standard unguided articulated bus of the type that has been around forever? You’re almost certainly not going to get rid of the driver, just as we still have drivers on trains and trams. And if you run one on city streets (or even painted bus lanes on city streets) then you’ve got a sort of passenger road train. And those kill cyclists, according to Uroskin and Boris Johnson.
All the other advantages, like resilience in the sort of disaster that damages tracks, seem to apply to buses in general.
Yes I think there are some key differences. The guidance systems provide a ride-quality more similar to light rail, while the all-wheel steering make them highly manoeuvrable. Also, the use of electric engine reduces noise/emissions etc.
But it depends on how you define ‘bog standard’ I guess? I don’t know what sort of articulated systems they run overseas. The result is quite different from the articulated buses that I think of, which were giant lumbering diesel things.
The all wheel steering shown in the video (where the bus “docks” with the platform) is clever technology. But isn’t accurate parking what any competent bus driver does already?
Well seeing as most roads in Auckland used to have trams on them the whole regrading of streets isn’t really such an issue, nor are the gradients, AFAIK trams managed Queen Street without a problem a;nd Zurich has plenty of really steep hills that trams happily stop and start on.
The buses pictured in Istanbul I remember from when I was last year and basically I couldn’t tell any differences in terms of how they were being driven there with how buses are driven in in other places. Basically it was the Istanbul version of Auckland’s North Busway, the main differences seemed to be that many of the bus stops were simply platforms in the middle of the segregated busway (which was in the middle of a very busy motorway) with bridge across the motorway on either side. It looked like a good solution for somewhere like the Northwestern, but not for a key urban route such as that often discussed – Queen Street – Dominion Rd.
Until buses can be guided down corridors with the precision of a tram on a track I still think we’re comparing two different technologies which are each better than the other in different circumstances. I also think on somewhere like Dominion Rd, a tram solution would free up road space that could otherwise be used for cycle lanes – the extra land required by buses c.f. trams is also something that seems to be ignored when pricing the two alternatives.
Apparently the buses can be driven with the precision of a tram on a track, depending on how you set the lateral tolerances. Maximum 1cm lateral movement is the current standard. The Phileas runnng in Istanbul do not make use of the advanced guidance systems, which is probably why you could not tell the difference between them and normal buses.
The question is not whether the technologies are the same, but whether the distance between this and LRT is small enough that it’s not worth paying the extra dosh for LRT. Given the rate at which this technology is developing, I think it would be wise to keep an eye on it – or even encourage it.
To me it is still working around the concept of a busway. You’d probably have guided buses on a dedicated ROW and then they’d spread out over diverse distant routes in the outer suburbs. The guidance system is different, but it is still the Adelaide O-Bahn revisited (and have you heard the squeakiness of their articulated buses after 25 years of use?). To me the model is still wrong, and it is still going after single seat rides from the outer suburbs to the CBD. The better model is feeder buses and secure bike storage at suburban train stations and then the best quality most frequent rail services your city can put together with flexible transferable ticketing.
Hmm … no I think the model is quite different from a busway, because the focus on electric engines and magnetic tracks means that the Phileas is much more suited to ped intensive areas.
It’s quiet different from the O-Bahn for a lot of reasons, of which the most obvious is that the vehicles are larger (180 pax) which greatly reduces the frequency. Also the “guidance” does not create a physical barrier.
The model you suggest (bus feeders to heavy rail) will work for long trips – and is something we should expect to see in Auckland outside the inner-city.
But I don’t think it’s viable for short trips, or for areas where heavy rail is not available?
Isn’t the issue the right of way or privilege, and the route planning and frequency and not what the vehicle looks like that really matters? Great to see new technology but this kit advocacy all feels a little ‘cart before the horse’ to me… Still keep it coming…
Yes completely agree with you there! I guess what I’m hoping is that these sort of developments motivate AT to take a more proactive approach to securing ROW, because by 2025 we may have a whole range of cool BAM technologies to use. So they should go on and grab that ROW, sort out the bus system, and then see where the tech has got to.
But I think the idea of demonstration projects is worth pursuing regardless, more on this soon :).
I also doubt that terrain would be an issue. Dominion Road & Great North Road historically had trams, while Tamaki Drive is dead flat.
On another note, can anyone explain what’s the point of Adelaide’s O-Bahn? I can’t quite see what it achieves compared to a normal busway aside from having a fancy German sounding name.
Just bear in mind that LRT will be a lot longer than the trams that used to run around Auckland! And I believe (but I must admit that I’m no rail engineer) that it’s the change in gradient, as much as the gradient itself, which causes problems for long LRT. I’m thinking of the right hand turn from Q street into K road in particular.
And it may not even be a question of “is it possible”, but more “how much does it cost.” Basically, as far as I understand any non-vertical loading on the rails (i.e. corners, gradients) will induce stresses that reduce it’s operating life. So there may be situations where you *could* run LRT, but the operating costs might be quite a bit higher than normal.
Not that the Phileas would not also be sensitive to some of those issues, but quite a bit lighter – which might make athe difference.
“On another note, can anyone explain what’s the point of Adelaide’s O-Bahn?”
I’ve never been there, but… I assumed that the guidance meant the lanes could be a lot narrower, and the buses could be driven harder and faster if they didn’t have to worry about running in to things like oncoming buses, or the edges of a busway. I’m surprised the system isn’t more widespread since it seems simple and effective to me.
I too am still trying to work out the point of Adelaide’s O-Bahn, and I was a beneficiary of the O-Bahn, growing up in Adelaide’s north eastern suburbs. Both of the main roads to the north east, which are North East Road or Payneham Road/Lower North East Road, carried the 500, 540 and 550 series buses. Congestion and parked cars made the routes very, very slow. I lived about 15km from the CBD and the bus could take 50 minutes. The guided busway was built in the river reserve, in what was provisionally reserved for a freeway. The works included the dual concrete tracks and many bridges over the river and the roads, plus flood mitigation and cycleways and turning it into a linear park. The landscaping, now mature, is quite an asset to the city. There was talk at the time of making it the same heavy rail as the rest of what is now the TransAdelaide network, but the O-Bahn was sold to Adelaide on cost and was going to be cheaper than the railway to build. Cost blow outs made it just as expensive as the train was going to be. My ride time dropped to about 25 to 30 minutes. Saving so much time it was very successful in boosting rider numbers and still it takes less time to bus it than drive it from my folk’s home.
Some things are good about it all – ride times, although infrequent feeder services kind of stuff that up. The cycleways meant I could ride into town without having to cross a road. You can ride a bike from the Hills to the beach which is 30km through the suburbs without fearing any traffic.
The stations are unattractive – with hideous concrete architecture and there are loitering smoking degenerate school kids and constant graffiti attacks. Boarding is still very, very slow through the front doors only.
When the bus gets to the CBD it joins city traffic and doesn’t get much in the way of priority to help it through. Recent efforts to remedy that were scuttled by dumb local politics.
It’s still a bus, and an articulated one at that. Very, very squeaky.
It has mainly a good safety record, except for rocks chucked from bridges, and drunk tourists trying to drive hire cars on the tracks. The North Eastern suburbs would have hour plus ride times to the city now with all the extra cars on those two roads.
I think they missed the opportunity to build a decent rail service to Modbury and Golden Grove. And if I lived in SE Brisbane or on Auckland’s north shore I would be hoping for some kind of frequent rail replacement to the busways, but in Adelaide it is not even on a long range plan.
@Pickle below, planned maybe, but definitely not started. I saw them building it all whilst I was growing up.
My understanding was that it was a light rail line that was halfway constructed and then cancelled and it would have been a waste to demolish the work that they’d done so far.
One thing I would do is still call this LRT, but just a variation of it. I mean nobody calls the Montral metro a bus system because it has rubber tyres.
You say that a bus system avoids the need for electric wires, but it’s perfectly possible to have a diesel-fueled LRT system (and even a bus system on rails). On the matter of longer LRT, the point of having an articulated system is to negotiate large curves like the one you describe. Having the ability to have all cars powered would also help in navigating steep sections.
Newer trams have no trouble handling tight turns, and IMO that turn from Queen Street into K’Rd is far from a tight turn, it is true that these are the parts that tend to wear out more due to the metal against metal.
Articulated light rail is articulated in the horizonal and vertical planes, I.e they bend around corners and bend over hills. Quite a vehicle on a fixed rail guideway is going to negotiate tricky horizonal and vertical curves better than one that doesn’t have rails guiding it.
Ok, Network planning and integration alarms are going off at The BrisUrbane Blog!
There is a lot of focus on the vehicle, what I would like to see is a map of Auckland with the specific corridors where Rapid Transit (and lets call it that, RT, because that’s what it is) vs the appropriate modes and some semblance of what pphd volumes are required. Brisbane’s bus system is quite good, and we don’t need fancy vehicles, we just have large standard and articulated buses.
I think frequency, connections scope of hours are very important service characteristics to look at, along with where and how.
Yup I’d agree with that. Work out the demands of the particular route first and then analyse, looking at a wide range of factors, which technology will be suit it.
Indeed. But since we’re talking in fairly abstract terms here, I don’t think it’s a problem. Explore the merits and shortfalls of a technology, then work out if, how, were, and why.
Gradients, snow and ice certainly are not an issue for LRT in Swiss cities, like Basel where I live now. The right hand turn from Queen St into K’Rd is no more difficult than many of the steep grades in this city. Now if 3 car trams can make those grades, often with snow and icey conditions for good measure, then Auckland can handle LRT without question.
BAM – a downside for BAM could be that they are single vehicles which cannot be coupled together for when demand requires longer units. Additionally, a LRT vehicle has a life of 40 or 50 years, the BAM, just like buses, would probably last 10 to 15 years under high use, so cost advantages disappear over that time frame. Cost was also the original excuse for replacing trams with buses in Auckland in the 50’s. We all know that the bus fleet has been replaced, probably between 5 and 7 times in the last 50 years, where as trams would have lasted that period, with upgrades over that time, of course.
Here in Basel, some of the trams in use have been operating since the early 60’s, though have had upgrades. BAM has advantages, but I would never use cost as an argument.
What are they like for boarding? One of the great things about Melbourne’s modern trams is that they offer three (or six, at terminus stops) large doors and can therefore take people on very easily – which also encourages hop on, hop off behaviour. These look similar, if not better in that regard.
Oh, and another question.
Most trams are double ended, because of their inability to turn. While these are articulated, there are of routes where you might just want to run them to a dead end and then send them back again without looping around a block or two. Their physical length does make turning them impractical in a lot of circumstances. I assume that with electric drivetrains it wouldn’t be a problem, but I’d like to know.
I’ll also note that the lane pictured above contains a truck and delivery van. Negates the benefit somewhat, but that’s their choice. I do think that one of the best things about heavy rail and some LRT lines is their exclusive use of the right of way – to the extent that freight isn’t mixed in. That’s obviously something that’s built into the Northern Busway, and something we need to maintain in future projects.
One of the suggested advantages of the BAM is that it can use an almost standard road. I attended a talk at the RTSA (subgroup of Engineers Australia) which was comparing various modes of PT and it was pointed out that a guided vehicle will require much stronger roadway because it uses exactly the same path each trip. Pictures were shown of it’s roadway breaking up after a relatively short time. My other pet dislike for busses has to do with the aceleration and braking that is applied so ferrociously by the drivers even on the gold plated Brisbane BUZ system. The steel on steel of rail vehicles limits the jarring that can be inflicted in this way as do the control systems. Is this perhaps an un-noticed advantage of LRTs and Trains?
I can certainly see the advantages that Stu is pointing at, but I remain unconvinced they are worth it over the need for dedicated ROW and grade separation which are the REALLY important elements in any such system, BAM or LRT or “standard” busway. And you get good ride quality in all three systems, assuming the corridor is laid out well. So in the most important criteria for passengers (speed/congestion avoidance) they all score the same, and in the second most important criteria (ride quality) the BAM scores almost as high as LRT, but only slightly better than a standard busway system.
So I’d suggest we build standard busways for the short run, possibly retrofit them with the magnetic guidance systems later (should be easy enough), and build LRT on Tamaki Drive for combined tourist/commuter purposes and because it looks cooler 😉