Position Statement Stansted to Braintree Rapid Transit System · This study has been commissioned to assess the potential benefits and feasibility of a rapid transit link between

Position Statement

Stansted to Braintree Rapid Transit System

Progress Report on Preliminary Concept and Feasibility Study

January 2019

i

Document Control Sheet

Document prepared by:

Daniel Nayrouz Transport Planning Victoria House Chelmsford CM1 1JR

T 0207 939 6241 E [email protected] W www.essex.gov.uk/highways

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Review Date

1 Draft DN 02/10/2018 TA 03/10/2018 MW 03/10/2018

2 Draft DN 05/10/2018 TA 05/10/2018 MW 05/10/2018

3 Draft DN 04/01/2019 BF 04/01/2019 MW 04/01/2019

4 Draft DN 10/01/2019 BF 10/01/2019 MW 10/01/2019

5 Draft DN 16/01/2019 BF 16/01/2019 MW 18/01/2019

6 Final DN 30/01/2019 BF 30/01/2019 MW 30/01/2019

Approved for Issue By Date

Martin Whittles 30/01/2019

Distribution

Name Organisation Number of Copies

David Sprunt ECC 1 by email

Alan Lindsay ECC 1 by email

Jenny Jones Jacobs 1 by email

Report Title Stansted to Braintree Rapid Transit Study: Preliminary Concept and Feasibility Study

Project Number B3553R7A

Status Draft

Revision 6

Control Date 29 January 2019

http://www.essex.gov.uk/highways

ii

Limitation statement

This report has been prepared by Jacobs for the exclusive use of Essex County Council and the North Essex

Authorities of Uttlesford District Council, Braintree District Council, Colchester Borough Council and Tendring

District Council. It is issued in accordance with the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and Essex County

Council. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance

upon, this report by any third party.

The analysis and forecasts contained in this report make use of information and input assumptions made

available to Jacobs at a point in time. As conditions change the analysis and forecasts would be expected to

change. Hence the findings set out in this report should be understood as relevant to that point in time when the

information and assumptions were made.

© Copyright 2019 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in

whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright

iii

Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Understanding the local context ..................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Uttlesford Draft Local Plan 2018-2033 ............................................................................................... 4

2.2 Stansted Airport Sustainable Development Plan ............................................................................... 5

2.3 The potential role of rapid transit ........................................................................................................ 5

3. Identifying objectives of rapid transit ............................................................................................ 7

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Other drivers and considerations ....................................................................................................... 9

4. Route options and supporting measures .................................................................................... 10

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Potential demand .............................................................................................................................. 10

4.3 Route opportunities and service configuration ................................................................................. 12

5. Rapid transit choices ..................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Modes and characteristics ................................................................................................................ 19

5.2 Feasibility .......................................................................................................................................... 21

5.3 Examples of Bus Rapid Transit ........................................................................................................ 24

6. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 28

Bus rapid transit

Guided bus rapid transit (GBRT)

Light rail transit (LRT or tram)

Tram-train and rail

iv

Figures

Figure 4-1: Stansted Employees' Place of Residence (SESAM Zones) .............................................................. 11 Figure 4-2: Percentage of Uttlesford commutes under 10km ............................................................................... 12 Figure 4-3: Segment 1 to be delivered by 2033 ................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4-4: Segment 2 to be delivered by 2033 ................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4-5: Colchester and Braintree subsystems in 2033 .................................................................................. 18 Figure 5-1: Use of infrastructure and guidance by different modes ..................................................................... 21 Figure 5-2: Luton-Dunstable Guided Busway Terminus ...................................................................................... 24 Figure 5-3: Cambridgeshire Guided Busway........................................................................................................ 24 Figure 5-4: Runcorn Unguided Busway ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 5-5: Nantes Busway .................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 5-6: BRT line in Metz ................................................................................................................................. 26 Figure A-1: Image of Runcorn BRT scheme ........................................................................................................ 29 Figure A-2: Zuidtangent BRT – Amsterdam (Source: BRTdata) .......................................................................... 30 Figure A-3: Image of Fastrack route ..................................................................................................................... 31 Figure A-4: Kent (Thameside) Fastrack scheme .................................................................................................. 32 Figure A-5: East London Transit Scheme ............................................................................................................ 33 Figure A-6: Weekly passenger breakdown for Stagecoach East (source: Stagecoach East) ............................. 35 Figure A-7: Proposed MetroBus route .................................................................................................................. 36 Figure A-8: Image of Crawley Fastway system .................................................................................................... 37 Figure A-9: Image of Manchester Metrolink ......................................................................................................... 39 Figure A-10: Edinburgh tram ................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure A-11: Coventry VLR system ...................................................................................................................... 41

Tables

Table 4-1: Stansted Airport to Easton Park .......................................................................................................... 13 Table 4-2: Within Easton Park .............................................................................................................................. 14 Table 4-3: Easton Park to Great Dunmow ............................................................................................................ 15 Table 4-4: Great Dunmow to WBGC .................................................................................................................... 16 Table 4-5: Within WBGC ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 4-6: WBGC To Braintree ............................................................................................................................ 17 Table 5-1: Service type characteristics ................................................................................................................. 19 Table 5-2: Services offered by rapid transit mode ................................................................................................ 19 Table 5-3: Infrastructure characteristics ............................................................................................................... 20 Table 5-4: Guidance systems ............................................................................................................................... 20 Table 5-5: Benefits of guidance systems .............................................................................................................. 20 Table 5-6: Initial assessment of options against objectives ................................................................................. 22 Table 5-7: Early assessment of strategic options ................................................................................................. 23 Table 5-8: Examples from Australia ..................................................................................................................... 27

1

Executive Summary

Jacobs has been commissioned by Uttlesford District Council and Essex County Council in conjunction with

Landsec and Manchester Airports Group (MAG) to undertake a feasibility study for a rapid transit system

between Stansted Airport and Braintree, stopping at Great Dunmow and the proposed Easton Park and West of

Braintree Garden Community developments. This local system could be part of the proposed rapid transit

system providing improved connectivity between Colchester, Marks Tey, Braintree and the proposed North

Essex Garden Communities (NEGCs), detailed in the North Essex Rapid Transit Study, submitted by Jacobs in

December 2017; or could be a standalone system. Accordingly, the feasibility of a rapid transit system linking

Braintree to Stansted Airport has been considered as a discrete scheme with the potential to be linked to a

comprehensive North Essex rapid transit system at a date in the future, should both the Uttlesford and North

Essex systems prove successful.

The Braintree to Stansted rapid transit system (RTS) would serve many of the Airport’s employees in Uttlesford

and neighbouring Braintree. MAG is seeking to accommodate up to 43 million passengers per year. It will also

help to alleviate congestion and environmental problems associated with over-reliance on private vehicles in

Uttlesford, whilst contributing to increased liveability, health and well-being.

Previously, the North Essex Rapid Transit Study indicated that a case could be made to roll out a system

incrementally. It is therefore considered appropriate to bring the Uttlesford section up to a comparable level of

detail as the other sections. This will ensure that the rapid transit proposal is co-ordinated with all available

relevant plans and strategies.

The study objectives are:

1. to review Uttlesford development and growth to identify potential demand and possible rapid transit hub

and spokes;

2. to identify indicative route opportunities and service configuration;

3. to review mode choice to support our approach to predicting how many trips will be attracted to the

different rapid transit options;

4. to determine options for implementation.

This report presents preliminary findings from the study by identifying the corridors and the potential feasibility of

such a service. The report explains why a bus-based rapid transit system, incorporating elements of dedicated

new links, would be the most suitable, flexible and affordable solution to pursue. It identifies centres that such a

system could connect: Stansted, Easton Park, Great Dunmow, West of Braintree garden community and

Braintree. And the report identifies the scale of development and growth which is expected over Uttlesford’s

Local Plan period until 2033, which supports the policy foundation of UDC to pursue a rapid transit system.

A further report will explore, in more depth, the feasibility of a bus-based rapid transit system connecting

Stansted and Braintree. This will be able to draw on transport modelling and transport planning work that has

been carried on in parallel in North Essex. Nevertheless, it is hoped that this preliminary report helps to give

confidence that a rapid transit system for Uttlesford should be considered as part of the set of transport

measures available to support Local Plan objectives.

2

1. Introduction

This study has been commissioned to assess the potential benefits and feasibility of a rapid transit link between London Stansted Airport and Braintree via proposed new garden communities in Uttlesford and Braintree. There is a vision to deliver the rapid transit services on an incremental basis, tying in with the delivery of two new garden communities: Easton Park and West of Braintree, which are operating on different timescales. The segmented route options generated in this report will therefore guarantee the flexibility to be rolled out in conjunction with the completion of each development. This report will consider the options for different rapid transit solutions, and their contribution to integrated and sustainable transport between the airport and the two new garden communities. In particular, rapid transit could help to meet travel demand associated with development growth in the next Local Plan period to 2033 more sustainably. The proposed garden communities in Uttlesford and Braintree, when fully built out, will have a total population of over 55,000 residents. The transport capacity at each site, and any necessary transport mitigation measures, will be the subject of separate discussions and agreements between the developers and the planning and highway authorities in accordance with usual planning principles. Meanwhile, London Stansted Airport currently handles 28 million passengers per year and over half of its passengers and a third of staff arrive by public transport. It is a key public transport node within Uttlesford and West Essex. It is the single largest employment site in Essex, where 12,000 staff work. Approximately one third of workers come from the districts to the east of the airport, namely, Uttlesford. The Regulation 19 Uttlesford Local Plan provides for the growth of the Airport and a potential rapid transit link would support sustainable transport provision to and from the expanded Airport. The promotion of sustainable transport modes between the airport and nearby settlements will build upon existing sustainable transport measures to help reduce an overreliance on private vehicles in Uttlesford and Braintree, alleviating both the pressures on the road network and air quality degradation resulting from greenhouse gas emissions.

The study will build on the information and modelling carried out as part of the North Essex Rapid Transit Study,

focusing on the identification of rapid transit solutions between London Stansted Airport and the proposed

Easton Park and West of Braintree Garden Communities. Different modes of mass rapid transit will be assessed

for financial viability, scalability, flexibility, and adaptability to technological change.

This will involve assessing the need for and feasibility of a rapid transit link serving London Stansted Airport

development and growth plans to identify key centres of demand which will inform service configuration. It is not

proposed that the high level public transport assignment model and outline business case appraisal will be run

again for the options identified. This is because it is not considered cost-effective to recode the public transport

assignment model just for this section and in addition, it would be preferable to wait for the next version of the

transport model which is currently being substantially improved. Nevertheless, the study will include a task to

improve the modal split assumptions. That is, better estimating the proportion of trips that might be attracted to

the chosen form of rapid transit through a review of previous schemes and consideration of the number of local

trips for which the RTS provides a viable option.

Other feasibility studies prepared for the NEGC Rapid Transit Proposals between Stansted Airport and Easton

Park Garden Community will be considered throughout the Study.

The study will conclude by consideration of how a scheme can be taken forward and implemented. For

example, considering whether a standalone Stansted to Braintree line could be incrementally constructed in a

first and second implementation stage, and perhaps connecting to the wider North Essex system in subsequent

stages. This section will also provide an early stage indication of the financial viability of the concept and

challenges.

Accordingly, to meet the study objectives provided by the client the study will:

1. Review Uttlesford development and growth to identify potential demand and possible rapid transit hub and

spokes;

2. Identify route opportunities and service configuration;

3. Review mode choice to improve our approach to predicting how many trips will be attracted to the different

rapid transit options; and

4. Identify feasible and phased implementation approaches.

3

This report, however, only considers the first two of the above study objectives. The latter two study objectives

will be reported on in a later report, in order that it can informed by the latest transport modelling and transport

planning work being carried out for the North Essex authorities.

The key stakeholders in this study will be Essex County Council, Uttlesford District Council, Manchester Airport

Group (MAG) and LandSec. Other stakeholders that may need to be consulted in the course of the study

include Network Rail, Greater Anglia, Arriva and Braintree, Colchester and Tendring Councils.

4

2. Understanding the local context

This chapter presents a local vision for a rapid transit system connecting London Stansted Airport to Braintree

via Great Dunmow and the proposed Easton Park and West of Braintree garden communities. The local

planning and development context provides guidelines that enable us to select the most suitable options.

The rapid transit system aims to provide a practical alternative to travelling by private car. This desire to provide

an alternative is driven by congestion, environmental and health concerns as evidenced in the opportunities and

challenges identified in the Regulation 19 Uttlesford Local Plan 2018-2033.

2.1 Uttlesford Draft Local Plan 2018-2033

The Regulation 19 Uttlesford Local Plan’s Spatial Strategy announces plans to build three new garden

communities in the district: Easton Park, West of Braintree and North Uttlesford. The new communities require

high quality employment, services and facilities, whilst supporting “a high quality of life for all and creat[ing]

healthy, safe and vibrant places for living and working”.

At Easton Park, which will comprise 10,000 new dwellings, of which at least 1,925 will be delivered by 2033, the

Council is explicit in its aim to provide sustainable transport links to the Airport.

At the proposed West of Braintree Garden Community, a further 10,000 new dwellings will ultimately be

delivered, with the aim of delivering 3,470 by 2033. A range of local employment opportunities and services and

facilities including schools, health, retail and leisure will also be provided, and Uttlesford District Council will

work with Braintree District Council to masterplan and deliver the project.

The demand that will be generated by these new residential and employment zones will subject the road

network to increasing pressures in 2033, necessitating mitigation. The North Uttlesford Garden Community,

which will comprise 5,000 new homes in total, as well as employment opportunities, schools, health, retail and

leisure facilities, does not fall within our study area, though a future extension to incorporate it into the rapid

transit network proposed in this study should not be ruled out.

The Town and Country Planning Association’s (TCPA)’s Garden City Principles aim to enable shoulder

journeys, reduce the need to travel by car and make active and sustainable modes of travel the most attractive

forms of local transport. This feasibility study explores the prospect of providing a link between Stansted Airport

and Braintree, passing through the aforementioned garden communities, in two phases. Segment 1 in this study

refers to the section of the route between Stansted Airport and Great Dunmow, and Segment 2 refers to the

section of the route between Great Dunmow and Braintree town centre. It is anticipated that both segments

would be operational by 2033 but either segment could be brought into use prior to this date.

2.1.1 District Transport Study

Whilst high car ownership rates will continue to characterise Uttlesford due its rural setting, there are plans to

bolster public transport alternatives in neighbourhoods within the District with the best access to facilities, with

Great Dunmow identified as a key hub for better public transport connections. As such, any development that

generates “significant movement”, such as the proposed garden communities, will be located “where the need

to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.” The travel plans

submitted alongside the applications to develop the garden communities will be required to detail strategies for

reducing reliance on cars in the masterplan process. Of specific relevance to the proposals in this report is

Policy TA4, which calls for rapid transit corridors to “support sustainable transportation connectivity between

Braintree, Great Dunmow, Stansted Airport and Bishop’s Stortford.”

Moreover, the District Transport Study notes the need to protect the Green belt and Countryside Protection

Zone (CPZ) from overdevelopment, as well as manage the environmental impact of Stansted Airport’s function

and activities. At the same time, the strategy to improve access to the Airport will be mindful of the need to

“enable further job growth”.

5

2.1.2 Air Quality Technical Planning Guidance – June 2018

The guidance in this report seeks to ensure consistency amongst applicants and developers regarding air

quality within Uttlesford, in accordance with the National Planning Practice Guidance and National Policy. One

of the key aims of the guidance is to “provide guidance on mitigation and offsetting of the impacts of a

development on air quality”. Specifically, a Travel Plan will be required for any development of more than 20

employees, encouraging staff and visitors to take up sustainable modes of transport wherever possible.

It follows that as more homes and employment areas are built in Uttlesford, where residents will continue to rely

heavily on the Airport for employment, maximising the sustainability of travel to work will be of paramount

importance to ensuring compliance with the guidance set out in this document.

2.2 Stansted Airport Sustainable Development Plan

Uttlesford District Council has resolved to grant planning permission, subject to a legal agreement, for the

expansion of Stansted Airport in coming years. Its owner, Manchester Airports Group (MAG), has aspirations for

the airport to handle 35 million per year by 2023 which is its maximum passenger limit under current planning

conditions. MAG has a longer-term aim to secure the lifting of the current planning cap and to this end Stansted

Airport held a consultation on a new Sustainable Development Plan in 2014.1 The recently conditionally

approved planning application sets out how Stansted’s single runway would develop to handle 43 million

passengers per year within pre-existing annual limits on the number of flights.

This growth would mean that the number of employees at the airport would significantly increase from the

current level of approximately 12,000-16,000. This does not include indirect employment at other locations near

the site. According to the 2015 London Stansted Airport Employee Travel Survey Analysis, employee travel to

the airport is predominantly by car (70.6%), with 15.1% of employees getting a coach or bus to work. Essex

County Council, Uttlesford District Council and MAG share the aim to increase the number of employees

travelling between Stansted Airport and the local area by sustainable modes of travel, with MAG stating its

commitment to ensuring “the right balance between growth and sustainability” in its Sustainable Development

Plan.

2.2.1 Bus and Coach Strategy – Sustainable Development Plan

The three key elements of this strategy, as outlined in the Surface Access chapter of MAG’s Stansted Airport

Sustainable Development Plan, are as follows:

a) To introduce new services where there is a business case;

b) To develop existing services; and

c) To increase patronage on all services to make the best use of available capacity and increase modal

share of buses.

Meanwhile, the Sustainable Development Plan’s policy on climate change acknowledges that the presence of

the airport can “have a significant influence over other activities which contribute to climate change”. One of

these contributing factors is travel to and from the airport by staff, and as such, promotion of public transport

use is a focal point of its strategy to reduce the direct and indirect causes of carbon emissions.

This feasibility study will address the business case for providing new bus services between the airport and the

proposed garden communities in Uttlesford and Braintree. There will also be discussion on the optimisation of

existing bus services to maximise patronage and minimise negative environmental impacts.

2.3 The potential role of rapid transit

This report will consider a range of rapid transit options to connect Stansted Airport with Braintree via Great

Dunmow and the proposed garden communities at Easton Park and West of Braintree. The characters of these

modes are compared and contrasted in further detail in Chapter 5. The modes under consideration are:

1 Airports Commission Final Report, July 2015, p.332

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf

6

• Bus rapid transit (BRT);

• Guided bus rapid transit (GBRT);

• Tram (LRT); and

• Rail.

Local bus services would remain complementary to any new rapid direct route between major centres.

7

3. Identifying objectives of rapid transit

3.1 Introduction

The aspirations of Uttlesford District Council and Essex County Council Local Transport Objectives have been

assimilated to identify the objectives for the rapid transit service between Stansted Airport and Braintree town

centre.

The following objectives have been drawn up:

• To enable housing and employment growth in the District; and

• To offer high quality public transport as an attractive modal choice to new residents moving into the

Garden Communities (GC), in accordance with the TCPA’s Garden City Principles.

Two secondary objectives have also been drawn up:

• To offer high quality public transport as an attractive modal choice to new residents moving into other

new developments along and adjacent to the RTS corridors; and

• To enhance the availability of high quality public transport as an attractive modal choice for residents of

existing communities along and adjacent to the RTS corridors.

The sub-sections below summarise aspirations for the rapid transit system, which have been informed by

discussions with Uttlesford District Council.

3.1.1 Mode share aspirations for the Easton Park and West of Braintree Garden Communities

The Uttlesford Regulation 19 Local Plan sets a target of 60% of trips to be made by active and/or public

transport modes at the Easton Park and West of Braintree Garden Communities. Whilst a distinction is not

made between active and public transport modes, Uttlesford aims to achieve the highest possible mode shift

from private vehicle to public transport use, including the potential rapid transit amongst commuters to Stansted

Airport and onwards connections via rail for those using the Airport as a local transport interchange.

Research suggests that road and rail based rapid transit solutions have a similar capacity to generate

patronage when developed with the aim of triggering modal shift from private vehicles2. With behavioural

research indicating no preference for either one of BRT (bus rapid transit) or rail modes, the lower costs of BRT

can offer a more cost-effective solution. One example of improved bus travel in the form of BRT increasing

ridership is in Houston, Texas, where 30% of BRT users were new users, and 72% had switched from private

vehicle use3.

3.1.2 Aspirations for presence and visibility

Currently, for local journeys in Uttlesford, public transport accounts for 7.7% of journeys to work (based on data

from the 2011 Census). Maximising the share of journeys on a rapid transit system could therefore enable a

significant change in travel behaviour.

It is considered that the rapid transit system must be perceived as fundamentally different to a regular bus

service. While parts of the UK such as London and Brighton have achieved significant increases in bus share

over the last twenty years, the context of these examples is different to Uttlesford.

The new garden communities will be required to achieve substantial modal shift, necessitating incentives for

behavioural change amongst incoming residents. Unlike increased highway capacity, provision of sustainable

travel facilities is not guaranteed to increase their uptake. Therefore, for behavioural change to occur, rapid

transit needs to have a high level of presence and visibility. The BRT will sit alongside the requirement to

2 Satiennam, T. et al (2016) Potential for modal shift by passenger car and motorcycle users towards Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in an Asian

developing city, International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 39, 121-129. 3 Levison, H. et al (2003) Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Cooperative Research Program, 1, 1-54.

8

reduce the need to travel, including by enabling self-contained communities, and making sustainable and active

travel the first choice wherever possible. As a BRT route connecting local centres in Uttlesford, stops will need

to be located to maximise accessibility and visibility within each of the garden communities and existing

settlements.

Design features of stations are key to accentuating the visibility of rapid transit schemes. For instance, the

Miami-Dade Busway and Los Angeles Metro Rapid lines benefit from state-of-the-art, eye-catching bus

canopies. Similarly, in Curitiba, Brazil, the glass tube-shaped bus stops have become symbolic of the city, and

inspired similar BRT systems across Latin America. This is now being repeated in schemes in the UK; of note is

the proposed Sprint BRT system in Birmingham.

3.1.3 Aspirations for quality

In using rapid transit to alter the perception of public transport, the quality of the offer is going to be an important

factor. This will be driven by a number of subjective factors such as look and feel, journey experience and ease

of use.

These can be influenced by consideration of:

• Supporting work and relaxation (tables, power sockets and refreshments for longer journeys);

• Journey information;

• Ease of payment and ticket systems; and

• Reliability in terms of journey times (using segregated routes where possible to avoid congestion)

Hence in selecting rapid transit options, it is considered appropriate to draw on examples that have

demonstrated that they can meet such criteria. In terms of appraising options consideration needs to be given to

the cost of ensuring such quality of service is deliverable.

One example of a high-quality service translating to high ridership on rapid transit is the BRT system in Curitiba,

Brazil, where the aforementioned tube-shaped bus stops serve as trunk and feeder lines at terminals, allowing

for fast, free transfers, and off-vehicle fare collection allows for quicker boarding of buses.

Furthermore, rapid transit, whether road or light rail based, offers the option of being partially or fully segregated

from road traffic, which ensures reliability of service in terms of journey times. The Croydon Tramlink, with a

fleet of 35 trams serving 39 stops along mostly segregated routes in the London Borough of Croydon and

surrounding areas, has operated a minimum of 98% of its scheduled services over the past 12 months, and has

had a minimum customer satisfaction of 90% over the same time period.

3.1.4 Aspirations for level of service

Assuming the rapid transit system connects the key community and economic centres and is perceived as high

quality, it still needs to meet a level of service in terms of frequency, journey time and capacity in order to be

considered as a practicable alternative to the private car.

While these factors will evolve as a system is designed, the aims for the system are:

• To have at least four services per hour at non-peak hours;

• Equivalent generalised cost between rapid transit and car;

• Sufficient capacity to accommodate forecast public transport demand; and

• Flexibility to expand and meet additional demand

Another aspect of level of service is network resilience so the rapid transit system can operate even though

there might be a disruption somewhere on the system.

9

These aspirations are explored further in the subsequent chapters by drawing on findings from rapid transit

systems elsewhere in order to consider options for Uttlesford.

3.2 Other drivers and considerations

Several other factors are likely to influence the choice of rapid transit system. In broad terms these address

wider sustainability issues; affordability and value for money; and opportunities arising from smart technologies.

3.2.1 Affordability and value for money

While bids can be made for capital costs if it is backed by a sufficiently robust business case, it would be

expected that a system would have sufficient demand to cover its operating and maintenance costs over the

long-term. There may be a requirement for some initial funding and support to begin service operation.

However, given concerns over inequalities, fare levels should be set at an accessible level. In terms of this

study, this can be reflected by using standard fare level assumptions with the economic appraisal. Therefore,

the more expensive systems, such as trams, will only be financially attractive if they can attract sufficient

demand to offset increased costs or receive a capital subsidy.

3.2.2 Innovation and smart technology

The draft Garden Community Development Planning Documents recognise the role that digital technology can

contribute to liveability. While smart living does not have to include a technological solution, it is recognised that

digital technologies often play a supporting role. In addition, Essex County Council is exploring ways such

innovations can support outcomes across the county.

In the context of the rapid transit system smart technology could be used to improve the user experience such

as through seamless ticketing and information systems; and contribute to efficiency and resilience through

energy optimisation and route optimisation. In time, driverless vehicles could be introduced which could further

drive down costs.

Within the transport sector, there has been a trend away from car ownership and towards on-demand transport

services such as Uber and cycle hire. There are also moves towards introducing non-petrol and autonomous

vehicles. However, at present, these innovations do not radically alter the pattern of demand or the need for

mass transit solutions.

10

4. Route options and supporting measures

4.1 Introduction

This section describes how indicative routes have been identified; how they could be phased; sections that are

segregated or mixed with car traffic; and an awareness of challenges and how they could be overcome.

Consideration is given to how the route interacts and services garden communities, based on the latest plans. It

should though be stressed that the route presented will merely serve as a basis for an initial view of the

practicability of the RTS concept. The shown routes must not be considered as a preferred option. It would be

expected there would be further refining of route choices and optioneering in subsequent planning phases,

which would also consider specific construction, traffic and environmental issues and, importantly, engage with

the local communities to seek their advice.

4.2 Potential demand

Several sources have been consulted to identify demand-generating areas along the route between Stansted

Airport and Braintree town centre, which has influenced our route choice:

• Bespoke trip growth analysis (September 2018);

• 2015 London Stansted Airport Employee Travel Survey Analysis;

• Regulation 19 Uttlesford Local Plan 2018-2033; and

• 2011 Census.

The trip growth analysis is described in Section 6 as it is integral to the assessment of financial feasibility.

4.2.1 2015 London Stansted Airport Employee Travel Survey Analysis

According to this survey of employees’ travel habits, 33.3% of the Airport’s 12,000 employees live in Uttlesford

and neighbouring Braintree, the two local authorities within which our study area lies. Figure 4-1 below further

breaks down the number of respondents who said they live in each SESAM Zone – that is zones as defined in

the surface access model for employment at Stansted.

11

Figure 4-1: Stansted Employees' Place of Residence (SESAM Zones)

The figure shows that there are large clusters of Stansted employees in Great Dunmow and Braintree. This can

be expected to rise upon delivery of the new garden communities in between the Airport and Braintree, as the

Airport’s annual passenger handling capacity and employment growth is forecast to grow until 2028. The

delivery of the garden communities, starting in 2033, will increase the likelihood of existing employees re-

locating to them, particularly if an enhanced and attractive transport option to the Airport is on offer.

4.2.2 Regulation 19 Uttlesford Local Plan 2018-2033

The Regulation 19 Uttlesford Local Plan’s Spatial Strategy sets out proposals to build three new garden

communities in the district: West of Braintree, Easton Park and North Uttlesford. The new communities require

high quality employment, services and facilities, whilst supporting “a high quality of life for all and creat[ing]

healthy, safe and vibrant places for living and working”.

The Easton Park development will comprise 10,000 new dwellings, of which at least 1,925 will be delivered by

2033. Such a substantial increase in the housing stock of the local area will subject the existing road network to

higher levels of traffic as people move between the new settlements and key areas of employment, including

Stansted Airport.

12

4.2.3 Census 2011 Travel to work data

Figure 4-2: Percentage of Uttlesford commutes under 10km

Figure 4-2 shows that the electoral wards in Uttlesford lying within our study area have some of the highest

proportions of commutes under 10km in the district. These include Great Dunmow North (39.7%), Great

Dunmow South (42.0%), Stansted South (43.4%) and Takeley and the Canfields (44.2%). Such distances are

better suited to rapid transit solutions such as light rail or bus.

4.3 Route opportunities and service configuration

At this stage of the study, only route corridors have been identified, since the development of options for route

alignments should be informed by a more detailed optioneering exercise. In addition, whilst this study focuses

on the planning of a rapid transit system between Stansted Airport and Braintree town centre, the emerging

proposal should note long terms options to potentially link to the proposed North Essex RTS. Initial ideas for

long term phasing are as follows:

• By 2026 – establish a core Colchester RTS linking the proposed Tendring Colchester Borders Garden

Community to the University, town centre and the rail station; and serving existing and new park and

ride facilities in Colchester.

• By 2033 – extending the Colchester RTS to the proposed Colchester Braintree Borders Garden

Community and Marks Tey,

• By 2033 – opening a separate section of the RTS linking Stansted Airport, Easton Park

development, the West of Braintree Garden Community and Braintree.

• By 2041 – joining the Colchester and Braintree sections of the RTS by creating a new section which will

be co-ordinated with any re-routing of the A12 and A120 trunk roads.

In the following subsections the logic of the Stansted to Braintree RTS section is described in more detail: how it

can be delivered in 2033; and how it could be adapted should, for example, the West of Braintree Garden

Community be delayed.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

13

4.3.1 Segment 1: London Stansted Airport to Great Dunmow

The rapid transit link between Stansted Airport and Braintree town centre has been segmented to offer flexibility

to be rolled out in conjunction with completion of developments at Easton Park and West of Braintree Garden

Communities on different timescales. This report refers to the section of the link between the Airport and Great

Dunmow as Segment 1, and the section between Great Dunmow and Braintree town centre as Segment 2. It is

anticipated that both segments would be operational by 2033 but either segment could be brought into use prior

to this date.

Figure 4-3: Segment 1 to be delivered by 2033

Table 4-1 to Table 4-6 present the characteristics of the different route sections.

Table 4-1: Stansted Airport to Easton Park

RT Route section Stansted Airport to Easton Park

Route

• The proposed Rapid Transit route would start at the existing Airport Bus Station The bus station is currently only accessed from the terminal roads via connections onto the A120 and B1256 at Takeley. A range of access options have been evaluated to/from Stansted Airport. During the detailed planning of the route these will be further evaluated and may include a new access or improving access from Coopers End Roundabout.

• Between the airport boundary and the north western boundary of Easton Park, the proposed route would run on a combination of dedicated two-lane bus road and existing carriageway.

14

Assumptions

• It is assumed that provision can be made within the existing Airport Bus Station for boarding, alighting and layover.

• It is assumed that rapid transit vehicles would be garaged and maintained off route.

New infrastructure

• The map shows an indicative line of the route that will comprise a two lane bus road between the airport boundary and Easton Park, with some new sections and some sections utilizing existing carriageway. This connection would also accommodate access for cyclists and pedestrians. (A similar facility has been provided at Gatwick Airport to enable local buses to access Perimeter Road North and serve North Terminal.)

• Between the airport boundary and the north western boundary of Easton Park, the proposed route would run on a combination of dedicated two-lane bus road and existing carriageway with provision for cyclists and pedestrians. The map shows an indicative alignment – the precise route will be as part of masterplanning for Easton Park, and in liaison with the Airport authorities.

Stops • The only stops on this section would be at the airport bus station and

at the Easton Park local centre/micro-hub.

Other considerations • It may be necessary to review capacity and operation of the bus

station in the longer term.

Table 4-2: Within Easton Park

RT Route section Within Easton Park

Route • Link serving proposed Town Centre and two Village Centres. The

majority of the route would be on a dedicated alignment.

Assumptions

• It is assumed that the development of Easton Park would include a primarily dedicated east-west alignment for Rapid Transit; and that the majority of this would be independent of the road network and provide easy access to the three Centres.

New infrastructure

• The majority of the route would be on dedicated alignment.

• Masterplans for Easton Park do not yet include a route, and it is important that this is determined at an early stage in conjunction with development of the road network and place-making.

Stops

• Masterplanning for Easton Park would be expected to include a Town Centre and two Village Centres, and it is proposed that the Rapid Transit would have stops at each of these.

Other considerations

• Phased introduction of route as development proceeds. Sections of the route may potentially be used by local feeder services as development proceeds.

15

Table 4-3: Easton Park to Great Dunmow

RT Route section Easton Park to Great Dunmow

Route

• New link from Easton Park to the B184, or initially to the B1256 via the site access.

• Access to and through Great Dunmow is initially proposed via the existing road network along Stortford Road to the High Street and continuing either via Braintree Road or Chelmsford Road.

Assumptions

• The indicative plans for Easton Park include a link between the eastern boundary and the B184, and it is assumed that the rapid transit route would follow this link. An alternative in the interim is a route onto the B1256 via the main site entrance.

New infrastructure

• New a two-lane bus road between Easton Park and the B184, with associated provision for pedestrians and cyclists.

• Bus priority measures on Great Dunmow High Street, or in the interim a route onto the B1256 via the main site entrance.

Stops • Tesco and the adjacent School.

• Great Dunmow, High Street.


• It may be possible to develop a parallel Stansted – Easton Park – WBGC – Braintree service bypassing Great Dunmow centre via the B1256 but serving the GDS transport interchange.

16

4.3.2 Segment 2: Great Dunmow to Braintree town centre

Figure 4-4: Segment 2 to be delivered by 2033

Table 4-4: Great Dunmow to WBGC

RT Route section Great Dunmow to WBGC

Route • It is assumed that the Rapid Transit service would initially operate

either via the B1256 or the A120.

Assumptions • Provision of the proposed west facing access to the B1256 west of

Rayne to facilitate operation via the A120.

New infrastructure

• Provision of west facing access at A120/B1256 for Rapid Transit and HGVs.

• Bus priority measures to reduce traffic on the B1256 to Rapid Transit and local traffic only.

Stops • No intermediate stops are proposed between Great Dunmow and

WBGC.


• It will be necessary to review traffic levels on the A120 and B1256 corridor and consider bus priority measures and/or the provision of dedicated Rapid Transit infrastructure in the long term.

17

Table 4-5: Within WBGC

RT Route section Within WBGC

Route • Dedicated alignment west of Rayne through new development,

rejoining route into Braintree.

Assumptions

• It is assumed that the development of WBCG would include a dedicated alignment for rapid transit; and that this would be independent of the road network and provide easy access to the planned centres of the garden community.

New infrastructure

• New dedicated alignment.

• The indicative plans for WBGC do not yet include a route, and it is important that this is determined at an early stage in conjunction with development of the road network and green corridors.

Stops • Locations to be determined as plans are developed.


• Sections of the route may potentially be used by local feeder services as development proceeds. Future change and development will depend on interim routing assumptions and delivery of more infrastructure as the site is built out.

Table 4-6: WBGC To Braintree

RT Route section WBCG to Braintree

Route • Access to Braintree is initially proposed via the existing road network

along Rayne Road continuing to the bus and rail stations.

Assumptions

• The Rapid Transit alignment in WBGC would include a link to Braintree town centre in addition to the link at the A120/B1417 interchange.

New infrastructure • Possible bus priority and traffic calming measure in Braintree.

Stops

• Braintree bus station.

• Braintree rail station.

• Extension to Braintree Freeport possible.


• Creation of a dedicated Rapid Transit route into the centre of Braintree that provides access for pedestrians and cyclists.

• Further extension of Rapid Transit towards Colchester.

4.3.3 Phased introduction of service changes

The Stansted Airport – Great Dunmow -Braintree corridor is currently served by several local and express bus

routes. The introduction of RTS services to serve new development also enables changes and enhancements

to existing services, including the potential to divert routes to serve other new developments already under

construction. Should BRT infrastructure be created, it would be expected that the infrastructure can also be

18

used by existing bus services and existing operators would be involved in running BRT services. As a

consequence, a thorough review of BRT with existing services would be expected.

4.3.4 2033 to 2041 – Joining the Colchester and Braintree subsystems

By 2033 it is hoped that two successful subsystems will have been created as shown in the diagram below.

Figure 4-5: Colchester and Braintree subsystems in 2033

Alongside the Stansted to Braintree RTS, by 2033 there is potential for a new rapid transit route linking

Colchester Town Centre and Hythe, as well as a route linking the University of Essex Colchester Campus to the

proposed Colchester Tendring Borders Garden Community. The two subsystems can then be connected along

a corridor secured as part of the major A120 and A12 rerouting and upgrading.

19

5. Rapid transit choices

5.1 Modes and characteristics

5.1.1 Modes considered

This section compares five possible modes which could potentially be used to operate rapid transit services.

The characteristics of these modes are compared in the subsequent subsections. The modes under

consideration are:

• Bus rapid transit (BRT)

• Guided bus rapid transit (GBRT)

• Tram (LRT)

• Rail

5.1.2 Service type

There are four main service types, with characteristics as shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Service type characteristics

Service type Characteristics

Local transit Typical distance between stops in urban areas of ~400m

Urban mass transit Typical distance between stops in urban areas of ~1km

Semi-Express Mix of express links between urban centres with additional stops (~1km spacing) within the urban centres

Express Single stop in urban centre, express links in between

The range of rapid transit options under consideration cover all service types, however, no one rapid transit

option covers all the service types listed in Table 5-1. A rapid transit system connecting Stansted Airport, Great

Dunmow, Braintree and the proposed garden communities at Easton Park and West of Braintree fills a gap

between local bus-based transit and express services provided by rail and coaches. Table 5-2 details the

service types offered by each rapid transit mode.

Table 5-2: Services offered by rapid transit mode

Rapid Transit Mode

Local transit

Urban mass transit

Semi -express Express

BRT ✓ ✓ ✓

GBRT ✓ ✓

Tram/LRT ✓ ✓

Rail ✓

5.1.3 Infrastructure and guidance

There are three main categories of infrastructure used by rapid transit modes as summarised in Table 5-3.

20

Table 5-3: Infrastructure characteristics

Segregation Infrastructure type Characteristics

Unsegregated Shared Infrastructure open for use by several modes with no specific priority for any particular mode

Segregated

Reserved Separate identification or demarcation of infrastructure space for specific modes or categories of user

Dedicated Specially provided infrastructure for exclusive use of specified mode

In the case of rapid transit modes, the choice of infrastructure type is often determined by whether the transit

system is retrofitted into an existing transport system or is part of a new construction where space can be set

aside. Within these types of infrastructure there are two main types of guidance system shown in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4: Guidance systems

Guidance system Characteristics

Non-guided Vehicles are steered by driver who determines path followed

Guided Specially designed infrastructure which enables suitably equipped vehicles to follow a precisely defined path

Depending on the type of guideway used, it is possible to configure vehicles which can follow a guideway where

available, but they can also be steered by the driver on sections where there is no guideway provided, for

example guided buses. Guidance offers four significant benefits to public transport modes as described in Table

5-5.

Table 5-5: Benefits of guidance systems

Benefit of guidance Benefits

Capability

Guided vehicles can operate within a smaller spatial envelope such as tunnels and narrow trackways. They can also operate through restricted clearances at higher speeds than unguided vehicles.

Capacity Guided vehicles can be longer than unguided vehicles, enabling higher capacity per vehicle.

Exclusivity Depending on their design, the presence of guideways can deter use by other vehicle types.

Presence Guideways are present and visible to potential transport users at all times, and offer reassurance that services are available.

However, certain types of guideway, for example those requiring safety fencing or protruding above the road

surface, can increase severance, especially if designated crossing points are required for pedestrians and other

soft modes. The relationship between the modes under consideration in this study and infrastructure and

guidance systems is shown in Figure 5-1.

Fully guided modes (tram, tram-train and rail) require the necessary guidance to be in place for the full length of

all routes in the network, including access to stabling and maintenance facilities. This also constrains flexibility

to extend or alter routes as services can only commence when all the necessary infrastructure is in place.

21

A significant advantage of guided buses is that they can also operate on sections of route without guideways,

offering greater flexibility to extend or alter routes served. However, it should be recognised that tram tracks can

be flush with road surfaces, so it is possible to run trams on shared infrastructure. The physical presence of

tram lines also means that trams are more easily operated than buses in semi-pedestrianised settings.

Figure 5-1: Use of infrastructure and guidance by different modes

Examples of the above systems are provided in Appendix A, which build on the characteristics identified above.

5.2 Feasibility

Table 5-6 shows how the four mode options identified in Table 5-1 above align with the objectives identified in

Chapter 3. Each option has been given a score for each one the objectives. The scoring is based on a Red (1),

Amber (2), Green (3) system, where Green has the highest value and has most positive impact and conversely

Red has the most negative impact and has the lowest value assigned to it. Each option is scored by the

cumulative score that each option has, made up of scores against the study’s objectives.

The worst scoring option is the first option which fails to meet the objectives of the study. However, it should not

be ruled out since together with other options could contribute to enable housing and improve the transport

system. Similarly, the second option partially meets the objectives of the study. On the other hand, the following

four options are the best scoring options since they fully meet the study’s objectives.

22

Table 5-6: Initial assessment of options against objectives

Objectives BRT GBRT LRT Rail

To enable housing growth ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

To offer high quality public

transport as an attractive modal

choice to new residents moving

into the Garden Community (GC)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

To offer high quality public

transport as an attractive modal

choice to new residents moving

into other new developments

along and adjacent to the North

East Rapid Transit (NERT)

corridors

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

To enhance the availability of high

quality public transport as an

attractive modal choice for

residents of existing communities

along and adjacent to the NERT

corridors

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

5.2.1 Additional sifting

All options considered above pass the initial assessment in that they meet the key objectives of the study. An

additional sift should therefore be undertaken to identify any ‘showstoppers’ which are likely to prevent an option

progressing at a subsequent stage in the process.

The Early Assessment and Shifting Tool (EAST) is a decision support tool that has been developed to

summarise and present evidence on options in a clear and consistent format.

EAST has been designed to be consistent with Transport Business Case principles in that the issues

respondents are asked to consider when assessing the economic impact of schemes are the same as those

that must be addressed in more detail in a full Transport Business Case. It is not intended to duplicate or

replace it.

The EAST tool has been used to aid in assessing systematically our options and demonstrate the process by

which a shortlist has been selected for further investigation. The process involves discarding options that

• Would clearly fail to meet the key objectives identified in Chapter 3;

• Do not fit with existing local, regional and national programmes and strategies, and do not fit with wider

government priorities;

• Would be unlikely to pass key viability and acceptability criteria (or represent significant risk) in that they are

unlikely to be:

o deliverable in a particular economic, environmental, geographical or social context;

o technically sound;

o financially viable;

o acceptable to stakeholders and the public.

23

Table 5-7 summarizes the results from the EAST tool. The Red/Amber/Green (RAG) scores for each one of the

cases, namely strategic, economic, managerial, financial, and commercial, provide a visual guide as to the

option’s impact.

Table 5-7: Early assessment of strategic options

Mode choice Strategic Economic Managerial Financial Commercial

BRT

GBRT

LRT

Rail

All four options fully meet the objectives of the study, since they would enable housing growth and improve the

public transport network. In terms of financial affordability, LRT and Rail options score lower than GBRT and

BRT options, with BRT being the most financially affordable option. A GBRT system is considered as a midway

offer between conventional bus and rail systems in terms of achieving a similar speed, capacity and design. The

differing factors between a BRT system and GBRT system are guidance, land uptake and speed. A GBRT

system typically runs on dedicated infrastructure (guideways) and hence tends to be more reliable and faster

than conventional buses, but also more expensive and less flexible. BRT systems may run on reserved or

dedicated infrastructure, and in some cases some sections may run on shared infrastructure. One of the key

drivers for choosing such a scheme is the flexibility that the system can provide. Since large levels of growth are

forecasted across a relatively large area and long period in Uttlesford, it is expected that a BRT system would

be attractive because of the flexibility it offers and that it can be delivered on an incremental basis.

The best scoring option is Option 1 (BRT) followed by Option 2 (GBRT). However, Option 2 is less financially

viable and provides less flexibility than Option 1, and in respect of the need to adapt to developments of

differing timescales, it has been ruled out. Similarly, Options 3 (LRT) and 4 (Rail), despite meeting the

objectives of the study to enable housing growth and improve the public transport network, have also been ruled

out due to their financial unviability.

However, it should be recognised that a completely segregated BRT system would be very close to a GBRT

system, but with more flexibility since normal buses would be able to use the infrastructure and costs and

retrofitting costs of vehicles would be avoided.

24

5.3 Examples of Bus Rapid Transit

5.3.1 Luton-Dunstable Guided Busway

Figure 5-2: Luton-Dunstable Guided Busway Terminus

Bus services along the Luton/Dunstable corridor were viewed as infrequent and unreliable. To tackle the

problem, Luton Borough Council has transformed the disused Luton-Dunstable railway into a fast-track Busway

- more than halving cross-conurbation journey times and leading to high passenger satisfaction on frequency

and journey times. The scheme has led to a 9% modal shift towards BRT in Dunstable.

5.3.2 Cambridgeshire Guided Busway

Figure 5-3: Cambridgeshire Guided Busway

The scheme links Cambridge with St Ives, Huntingdon and Northstowe (a proposed new town) to the north-

west, and with the M11 motorway to the south. The route includes two sections of guided operation, a bus-only

road and other places with on-street operation in conventional bus lanes. New park and ride sites have been

built at Longstanton and at St Ives, with a tarmac cycle track/bridleway alongside some sections of the route.

The final scheme includes bus priority and real-time passenger information system displays at busway bus

stops; and subsequent separate funding and works to better link those stops to local businesses for pedestrians

and cyclists. Since the busway became operational, a quarter of its ridership has shifted from private vehicle

use.

25

5.3.3 Kent Fastrack Busway

Kent Fastrack is an unguided bus service providing transport across Kent Thameside. Services run up to every

10 minutes offering a local transit service for local journeys from new and existing developments around

Dartford, Bluewater, Ebbsfleet and Gravesend. It also provides links to Ebbsfleet International station and

Bluewater shopping centre. This scheme has attracted 19% of its users from driving, whereas another 60% of

its users previously used regular bus services.

5.3.4 Runcorn Unguided Busway

Figure 5-4: Runcorn Unguided Busway

The Runcorn scheme opened in 1971 and operates on a segregated busway which is dedicated for buses only

on an unguided system. This scheme has initiated a 16% shift from public transport to BRT and a 75% shift

from car to BRT.

5.3.5 Nantes Busway

Figure 5-5: Nantes Busway

The Nantes Busway (line 4) is a bus rapid transit line operating in the city of Nantes, France. The service was

inaugurated in 2006 and is operated by Semitan. The line runs from Place Foch to Porte de Vertou on a

dedicated right-of-way, and interconnects with line 1 of the Nantes Tramway at Duchesse Anne Château

station. Four park & ride facilities have been built along the construction of the line to encourage passengers to

use public transport. Nantes Busway line 4 is NF certified (NF stands for French Norm). A victim of its own

success, Busway line 4 attracts higher ridership than Semitan expected, pushing the system to saturation.

Buses are overcrowded at peak times and nearly full off-peak. Semitan tested the Hess LightTram in November

26

2009 to eventually increase capacity of the system and relieve overcrowding at peak times. Though that

solution was not implemented, Semitan decided to increase passage frequencies to less than 3 minutes at peak

times.

5.3.6 Bus Rapid Transit lines in Metz

Line A runs from Woippy to Borny and Line B from Saulcy Island, through the science and technology park, to

the new Mercy hospital. The two lines share a section comprising ten stops between the Sérot and Provence

boulevards, crossing the city centre and stopping at the railway station and new Pompidou-Metz centre.

Figure 5-6: BRT line in Metz

27

Table 5-8: Examples from Australia

System Mode Shift

Adelaide North East Busway4

Ridership Growth = 24%

% Passengers that previously drove = 40%

Sydney Liverpool Parramatta Transitway

Ridership Growth = 56% 47% of growth new

journeys

% Passengers that previously drove = 26%

Brisbane SE Busway Brisbane

Ridership Growth = 56% 17% new journeys

% Passengers who previously drove = 26%

SmartBus Route 901 Melbourne

Ridership growth = 42%

% Passengers who previously drove = 34%



% Passengers who previously drove 29%



%Passengers who previously drove 21%

4 Mode split: 10% Public Transport, 84% Private Transport, 6% Non-motorised User

28

6. Conclusion

This preliminary report and position statement has considered the development of a concept for a RTS linking Stansted Airport, Great Dunmow and Braintree via new garden communities at Easton Park and West of Braintree. While a range of modes – bus, guided bus, tram and trains – have been considered, the study has recommended that a bus based RTS, that is BRT, is the most feasible option. If BRT to be the chosen option, then the routes it would use could be incrementally developed. Initially, only limited sections of the route would be segregated, but as demand grows the level of segregation would increase. It should also be realised that a route optioneering exercise should be undertaken which will inform public consultation on the selection of any route. Therefore, the assumptions on routes given in this report should be treated as indicative. The next stage of the study will consider the feasibility of such a bus based rapid transit system by drawing on the parallel transport modelling and planning work being carried out for the North Essex authorities.

29

Bus rapid transit

Bus rapid transit systems typically run on reserved or dedicated infrastructure, and in some cases some

sections may run on shared infrastructure. Bus rapid transit is typically used for urban mass transit within

conurbations, and semi-express inter-urban and commuter services.

Example 1 – Runcorn Unguided Busway

The purpose of this scheme was to provide a high-quality and accessible bus system by offering a local transit

service which made buses competitive with private cars for local trips. The scheme has initiated a 16% shift

from public transport to BRT and a 75% shift from car to BRT (on surveyed routes).

Table A- 1: Runcorn Unguided Busway Characteristics

Service Type Local Urban mass transit Semi-Express

Infrastructure Type Shared Reserved Dedicated

Guidance Unguided Guided

The Runcorn scheme opened in 1971 and operates on a segregated busway which is dedicated for buses only

on an unguided system. This scheme was built in anticipation of surrounding development, and the Stansted to

Braintree scheme is likely to follow this notion and be built prior to or at the same time as residential

development.

Figure A-1: Image of Runcorn BRT scheme5

5 https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8539/8698427128_919fe9c302_b.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8539/8698427128_919fe9c302_b.jpg

30

Example 2 - Zuidtangent, Amsterdam

The Zuidtangent BRT system offers a direct route between Amsterdam Zuidoost, Schiphol Airport and Haarlem

Central Station. Buses operate on a frequent basis at every 6 minutes during the day with the end to end trip

taking approximately 60-70 minutes.

Table A- 2: Zuidtangent BRT Characteristics




The scheme incorporates both dedicated (37km) and unsegregated sections of busway running on an unguided

system. Between Schiphol and Amsterdam Zuidoost, buses run mainly on public roads, including motorways,

with some unreserved sections. Some sections of the route are also used by local buses, with off-line stops to

enable express buses to overtake.

Since 2011, the service has been marketed as an integral part of the R-net (Randstad-net) system which

includes bus, BRT, tram and metro services. The system includes a dedicated tunnel under the runway to

access Schiphol airport, and has been designed for possible future upgrade to light rapid transit or tram

operation.

Figure A-2: Zuidtangent BRT – Amsterdam (Source: BRTdata)

31

Example 3 – Kent (Thameside) Fastrack

The purpose of the Kent (Thameside) Fastrack scheme is to provide a fast, reliable, efficient transport across

Kent Thameside. Services run up to every 10 minutes offering a local transit service for local journeys from new

and existing developments around Dartford, Bluewater, Ebbsfleet and Gravesend. It also provides links to

Ebbsfleet International station and Bluewater shopping centre.

Table A- 3: Kent (Thameside) Fastrack




The Fastrack scheme runs on a combination of shared and reserved infrastructure on an unguided system as

illustrated in Figure A-3.

Figure A-3: Image of Fastrack route6

Dedicated Fastrack services are operated by Arriva. However, from December 2017, the section of London

Buses route 96 between Dartford and Bluewater has been diverted to run on the Fastrack route. It previously

ran non-stop on the public road network, but now additionally serves Darent Valley Hospital with no increase in

overall journey time.

6 http://www.go-fastrack.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/fastrack-route-map.pdf

http://www.go-fastrack.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/fastrack-route-map.pdf

32

Figure A-4: Kent (Thameside) Fastrack scheme7

Example 4 – East London Transit

East London Transit (ELT) is a network of services developed by Transport for London to meet the existing and

anticipated demand for public transport in East London caused by the Thames Gateway redevelopment.

Although originally conceived as a bus rapid transit system, it has limited segregation from other traffic and is

operated as part of the London Buses network. The original East London Transit opened in phases between

2010 and 2013, since when it has been further developed and extended.

Table A- 4: East London Transit Characteristics




There are currently three routes, which combine on the core section between Barking town centre and the

Thames View Estate. Most of the routes run on unsegregated roads, with segregated sections in Barking Town

centre and short segregated sections within the existing Thames View Estate. Longer segregated sections are

being provided on extensions to serve new development into Barking Riverside, however there is no bus priority

or segregation at the signalised junction at Movers Way/River Road where the main access road from Barking

into Barking Riverside crosses the A13.

7 http://www.go-fastrack.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-Bridge-1024x509.jpg?1512086410070

http://www.go-fastrack.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-Bridge-1024x509.jpg?1512086410070

33

Figure A-5: East London Transit Scheme8

Much of the system has been developed by extending, upgrading and renumbering several pre-existing bus

routes which served the Thames View estate. Improvements include, higher frequency, longer hours of

operation, new rolling stock, and new links to the station at Dagenham Dock. When the system opened, the

buses carried a special livery. More recently, the introduction of new Routemasters resulted initially in operation

with unbranded buses, with displaced ELT branded buses transferred to other routes

Routes EL1 and EL2 operate through areas of Barking Riverside which have yet to be developed. In particular,

route EL1 has recently been extended to run every six minutes to serve a new school campus and is also

intended to attract demand as the surrounding area is built out.

Construction of an extension of the London Overground to Barking Riverside is expected to begin in early 2018,

with train services starting during 2021. It is anticipated that the local bus network will then be reconfigured to

serve the new station.

8 http://www.ukbusawards.org.uk/content/images/stories/2010-SLImages/INF-ELTransit.gif

http://www.ukbusawards.org.uk/content/images/stories/2010-SLImages/INF-ELTransit.gif

34

Guided bus rapid transit (GBRT)

A GBRT system is considered as a midway offer between conventional bus and tram systems in terms of

achieving a similar speed, capacity and design. The differing factors between a BRT system and GBRT system

are guidance, land uptake and speed. A GBRT system typically runs on dedicated infrastructure (guideways)

and hence tends to be more reliable and faster than conventional buses.

Example 1 – Cambridgeshire Guided Busway

The Cambridgeshire GBRT system offers a semi-express service between Huntingdon, St Ives and Cambridge

(including the rail stations and Addenbrooks Hospital). It also serves 4 park and ride sites (St Ives, Longstanton,

Trumpington and Madingley Road). However, this unintentionally encourages drivers to travel to each of these

park and ride sites using the car. With this in mind, the potential mode shift away from the car is likely to be

limited.

This scheme predominantly operates on dedicated infrastructure, which allows speeds of up to 56mph to be

reached. However, sections of the busways are not dedicated, instead there are some reserved sections for

buses and taxis which are located in the historical city centre.

Table A- 5: Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Characteristics




The system demonstrates how a disused railway line can be utilised as a guideway for buses. The scheme

which opened in 2011 has seen increasing patronage on a year by year basis as illustrated in Figure A-6 which

provides a weekly breakdown of passenger numbers for Stagecoach East.

35

Figure A-6: Weekly passenger breakdown for Stagecoach East (source: Stagecoach East)

The busway operates on a guided system for the majority of the route, which as identified earlier, offers

capability, capacity, exclusivity and presence.

Example 2 – Bristol MetroBus

Bristol MetroBus system is planned to offer a smarter way of travelling that will speed up journey times, relieve

congestion and reduce levels of congestion. The MetroBus has been promoted as offering a new express bus

service along the 50km network9, and is therefore likely to provide single stop services in the city centre, with

express links in between.

Table A- 6: Bristol MetroBus Characteristics




Part of the scheme will run on a disused railway line, making use of segregated busways (dedicated) and bus

lanes (reserved).

9 https://travelwest.info/metrobus

https://travelwest.info/metrobus

36

Figure A-7: Proposed MetroBus route10

Example 3 – Crawley Fastway

Fastway is promoted as the first bus rapid transit system in the world to be built outside a major city by a

partnership of local authorities and private companies with automatic vehicle location, pre-trip and in-trip

passenger information and automatic traffic signal priority from the start.

Table A- 7: Crawley Fastway Characteristics



10 https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/travelwest/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/metrobus_leaflet-map-June2016.pdf

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/travelwest/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/metrobus_leaflet-map-June2016.pdf

37


The Fastway system provides a local transit service serving the Crawley, Gatwick Airport and Horley area.

Fastway operates along sections of dedicated guided busway and reserved bus lanes and has been specially

designed to speed past congestion hotspots and offers a comfortable, reliable and efficient alternative to travel

by car.11

A total of 1.5km of the route runs on guideway, offering some of the key benefits discussed above. Sections of

guideway have been used to prevent the use of certain road links between neighbourhoods by general traffic.

However, longer sections of guideways tend to work better than multiple short sections of guideways with

regards to achieving reliable journey times and faster services.

The routes run close to stations at Crawley, Three Bridges, Gatwick Airport and Horley, but interchange is of low

quality. When introduced, services through Gatwick Airport were able to run on non-public roads within the

airport perimeter, however security restrictions now mean that routes must stop at laybys on the main A23.

Figure A-8: Image of Crawley Fastway system12

11 http://www.fastway.info/about-fastway/ 12 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=crawley+fastway&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB774GB774&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL-

qPQsoTYAhVjKsAKHfiIAbAQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1680&bih=919#imgrc=71DPkLlss4MrLM:

http://www.fastway.info/about-fastway/

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=crawley+fastway&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB774GB774&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL-qPQsoTYAhVjKsAKHfiIAbAQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1680&bih=919#imgrc=71DPkLlss4MrLM

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=crawley+fastway&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB774GB774&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL-qPQsoTYAhVjKsAKHfiIAbAQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1680&bih=919#imgrc=71DPkLlss4MrLM

38

Light rail transit (LRT or tram)

Although trams can present reputable levels of modal shift, such systems also incur high capital costs (costing

more than most bus-based systems) associated with transporting passengers to their ultimate destination, since

trams are limited in terms of their flexibility and therefore typically run on simple routes with few branch lines.

Costs can be categorised into construction, infrastructure, operations and maintenance. Tram and light rail

services are typically urban mass transit. Longer routes can offer semi-express services – for example between

suburbs and urban centres

Example 1 – Freiburg

Line extensions and development around the tramlines has resulted in approximately 80% of Freiburg’s

population living within 800m of a tram stop offering a local transit type of service. The type of infrastructure in

Freiburg varies between shared and dedicated, since all vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians can cross the tram

lines, yet the trams themselves run on specific routes with the guided rail system embedded into the ground.

Table A- 8: Freiburg LRT Characteristics




Example 2 – Manchester Metrolink

The Manchester Metrolink was originally designed to take over two rail lines which required extensive

modernisation, and to provide a more affordable cross-city link than the proposed heavy rail line. It has

subsequently been expanded on new alignments to serve regeneration areas of the city and provide local links

to the airport.

Table A- 9: Manchester Metrolink Characteristics




Thus, in comparison to the Freiburg scheme, the Metrolink provides longer distance services over a wider area.

However, more people are using buses than the Metrolink since the bus network is more extensive with a larger

proportion of residents living within walking distance from bus stops.

The Manchester Metrolink offers a frequent semi-express service, running on shared, on-street and dedicated

infrastructure using a guided system. However, because the original parts of the system serve repurposed rail

stations, the trams have high floors to align with standard height rail platforms. This means that stops at on-

street sections are much more intrusive than those for low-floor trams and cannot be shared with other modes.

39

Figure A-9: Image of Manchester Metrolink13

Example 3 – Edinburgh Tram (GBRT to LRT)

The Edinburgh Tram has been chosen as a key example due to the fact that part of the route originally operated

as a busway known as the ‘West Edinburgh Guided Busway’ or ‘Edinburgh Fastway’. The 1.5km guided busway

was built with a future tram network in mind. This flexibility and adaptability is one of the key advantages

associated with bus rapid transit-based systems. Essentially a ‘pre-tram’ system can test whether a tram system

would fit the forecasted demand. In time, the bus-based system can attract and increase passenger numbers,

and once a desired level of patronage is reached, it could be upgraded to a LRT system.

The Edinburgh Tram connects to multiple transport interchanges, including Edinburgh Airport, a park and ride

site at Ingliston, and connects with bus and rail services.

Table A- 10: Edinburgh Tram Characteristics




The Edinburgh tram route covers 14km from York Place in the city centre to Edinburgh Airport. With 16 stops,

the system offers an urban mass transit system with stops approximately 1km apart. The trams run on guided

13 http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/work-begins-to-transform-crumpsall-metrolink-stop-ahead-of-350m-expansion

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/work-begins-to-transform-crumpsall-metrolink-stop-ahead-of-350m-expansion

40

dedicated infrastructure, which is also shared with other road users at junctions in order to enable all traffic to

turn.

Figure A-10: Edinburgh tram

Example 4 – Coventry Very Light Rail14

A new system known as ‘Very Light Rail’ (VLR) is currently being developed as part of a research project by the

University of Warwick. The system will use a state-of-the-art rail system which is claimed to be cheaper, quieter

and more environmentally friendly than anything currently available.

14 https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/research/hvmcatapult/research/rail/vlr/

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/research/hvmcatapult/research/rail/vlr/

41

Figure A-11: Coventry VLR system

The project is funded by the Government’s Local Growth Fund through the Coventry and Warwickshire Local

Enterprise Partnership and West Midlands Combined Authority Devolution Deal (which is subject to approval of

the business case). It is claimed that this will use a state-of-the-art rail system which will be cheaper, quieter and

more environmentally friendly than anything currently available. Vehicles would be self-propelled using battery

technology only, removing the need for overhead line equipment. It is anticipated that VLR could come into

operation by 2025.

42

Tram-train and rail

A tram-train system offers a vehicle and service type that can operate in the street as a tram but can also

operate on standard railway lines. Tram-trains often share lines with intercity passenger rail and freight, to go

longer distances into the surrounding suburbs. One of the key issues with tram-trains is that they become less

effective for longer journeys since trams typically operate at slower maximum speeds than trains on shared

sections of track.

Tram-trains can offer semi-express services with the advantage of better penetration of urban centres than

heavy rail. Note, however, that the more common way of achieving this in the UK is for sections of heavy rail to

be disconnected from the main network and modified for tram operation, as in Manchester, Birmingham and

Croydon. This avoids issues of interoperability, electrification systems, and crashworthiness.

The potential of tram-train services and operation between Stansted Airport and Braintree is non-existent due to

the lack of an existing railway line connecting the Airport with Great Dunmow and Braintree.

Heavy rail is another mode to be considered in terms offering a capacity that supports travel demand in a

certain area. Rail often covers larger geographical areas. This mode can offer local stopping services as well as

express services dependent on the type of infrastructure in place. All trains operate on dedicated, guided

railway lines that are only shared in the case of the tram-train examples previously discussed. As there is no rail

capacity which coincides with the key corridors, this report does not give rail examples due to the financial

unviability of construction and operation.