Bus proposals

Whitehill Bordon Early Win Bus Service Options Options for consideration and consultation

July 2011

Bus Service Proposals Review Table of Contents Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 1.1 Constraints with delivering improvements........................................................................ 2 1.2 Existing Services ............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Previous Proposals.......................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1 Option 1 – East-West Loops ........................................................................................ 4 1.3.2 Option 2 – Town-Wide Service .................................................................................... 4 1.4 Route Issues ................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Revised Options ................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Option 1 – Town Based Service ...................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Benefits.................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Disbenefits ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Option 2 - Town Based Service with Greatham Connection ........................................... 8 2.2.1 Benefits.................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Disbenefits ............................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Option 3 – Wider Area Local Service ............................................................................. 10 2.3.1 Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Disbenefits ............................................................................................................. 12 2.4 Further Considerations .................................................................................................. 12 3.0 Potential Patronage......................................................................................................... 13 4.0 School Catchment Areas ................................................................................................ 17 5.0 Vehicle Opportunities ..................................................................................................... 21 5.1 Electric Vehicles ............................................................................................................ 22 5.2 Hybrid Vehicles.............................................................................................................. 23 5.3 Filter and Efficiency Technologies ................................................................................. 23 5.4 Vehicle Option Summary ............................................................................................... 24 5.5 Useful links .................................................................................................................... 24 6.0 Support to Service Improvements ................................................................................. 26 7.0 Conclusions and Next Steps .......................................................................................... 27 7.1 Service Delivery Programme ......................................................................................... 27 Appendix 1: Detailed Route Descriptions ................................................................................. 29 Appendix 2: European Emission Standards ............................................................................. 32

i

1.0 Background In 2007 HCC carried out an extensive survey to understand accessibility in Whitehill Bordon which included a large circulation questionnaire (3,500 residents – 25% return ~ 900 respondents). 56% of respondents that made additional comments raised dissatisfaction with current public transport provision and throughout the responses a number of concerns regarding current public transport systems were raised. In particular, residents and employers consider that; • • • • •

the range of destinations served is inadequate the frequency of services is poor the cost of bus travel is too high connection to the rail network is difficult links to healthcare and education are inadequate

A poor public perception, lack of local route coverage and reliance on sub-regional routes for town connections identifies the need for improvements in how public transport services are provided in and around the town in order to promote an increased use of public transport and to provide a real alternative to the car. Additionally current town travel is dominated by the private car, with higher rates for car mode share in the town than the majority of Hampshire, and there are real accessibility issues for anyone living in the surrounding areas who, against local statistics, does not benefit from accessibility to a car.

The announcement of Whitehill Bordon as one of the Country’s first four Eco-towns has brought special attention to the town and enabled a number of studies to be undertaken. The Transport Strategy produced to support the town Draft Framework Masterplan conceptualised a series of bus improvements which could be brought forward before development as ‘Early Win’ schemes. This identified town-wide routes, local area loops and strategic connections. The announcement of the town as one of the first wave Eco-towns has also brought funding to the town for the delivery of demonstration projects which seek to change attitudes, prepare areas for growth and development and to trial new and innovative technology.

As a key local priority, and an area where improvement is possible, the Eco-town project is seeking to deliver bus service improvements in the local area which can generate a shift in both attitude and behaviour away from a car-based transport system to more sustainable choices. Whilst not purporting to offer the final solution, which is set out in the Transport Strategy documents and will be delivered with the Draft Framework Masterplan, these improvements will help to change attitudes to public transport, prepare the town for growth, offer real and warranted benefits in the early stages of development and will inform future policy and strategy development. These service improvements also offer the ability to trial new low carbon vehicle technology to inform future service delivery.

1

1.1

Constraints with delivering improvements

Consideration has been given to how local bus services can be improved, building upon the concepts set out in the Draft Framework Masterplan. There are however a number of considerations to be taken into account before considering these options; No blank canvass - Whitehill Bordon is an existing settlement with a defined urban area and transport systems, including both the physical road network and public transport provision. Any options for improvement therefore need to consider and build upon existing services, population distributions and transport networks.

Commercial Competition – The County Council (and any public authority) is required to take full account of the relevant legislation, and this includes taking account of legislation preventing publicly funded bus services from detrimentally impacting on commercially run bus services. It is therefore necessary that any service options put forward to not directly compete with current commercially operated services.

Age of Austerity – In a time where public finances are constricting, and pressure on public funding is great, consideration has to be given to ensuring the best use of public finances. Bus subsidy levels in Hampshire are being reduced significantly which is likely to mean reductions in service provision. The wider picture on public transport services needs to be balanced against the specific circumstances in Whitehill Bordon.

Short-term trial - It is generally accepted that if there is potential for a route to be commercially viable then it would already be operated by a public transport provider. It is therefore considered unlikely that, at the current time, the service options set out in this paper will become viable without ongoing subsidy, and it is unlikely that subsidy will continue beyond the funds made available directly for this project. Early discussions with local operators confirm this view.

Route Suitability – Whitehill Bordon and its surrounding areas are generally rural in nature. Aside from the main local roads the road network is generally made up of country lanes, ancient roads and sunken lanes. The suitability of local roads to safely and practically accommodate improved and extended bus services is therefore a key consideration for routing options.

2

1.2

Existing Services

Whitehill Bordon is served by a number of local bus services, principally Services 13 and 18 which are the Stagecoach operated links from Bordon to Liphook and Alton (Service 13) and to Aldershot and Haslemere (Service 18). The current services are listed in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1 below.

In addition the town is served by Service 73 (Weds AM only link to Petersfield), and parts of Whitehill Bordon are eligible for a demand responsive taxi-share service known as the Bordon Link. Services 19 and 37/38/737 operate fairly close to the town, but do not serve its population.

Table 1: List of Current Bus Services Route Number 13 17/18/19 37/38/737

Route Alton-Bordon-Whitehill-Liphook Aldershot – Farnham – Bordon – Hindhead - Haslemere Alton – Selborne – Greatham – Liss – Petersfield: Havant

227 Bordon School Bus

Mill Chase – Bordon Infants – Oakhanger – Hogmoor – Whitehill – Chalet Hill – Mill Chase

73

Petersfield – Liss – Whitehill Bordon Whitehill Park – Beaufort Rd – Hogmoor Rd – Firgrove Rd to Bordon Centre

Bordon Link 221

Mon-Fri 1 per hour

Frequency Sat 5 per day

2 per hour (1 to Whitehill) Greatham 6 per day Liss 1 per hour School Times/Days

2 per hour (1 to Whitehill) Greatham 5 per day Liss 1 per hour No Service

Weds AM Only

No Service

5 per day – pre booked

5 per day – pre booked

Sun No Service No Service No Service

Operator Stagecoach Stagecoach Stagecoach

No Service

Stagecoach

No Service No Service

Wheel Drive AMK

Figure 1: Current Bus Service Routes and Key Destinations

Services 13 and 18 provide the town with a reasonably regular and reliable service between Aldershot, Alton, Liphook, Farnham and Haslemere.

3

There is however an acknowledgement that Whitehill Bordon is less well served by public transport than other areas of the County and local public perception of the bus-based public transport system is that service levels and provision is ‘poor’.

1.3 1.3.1

Previous Proposals Option 1 – East-West Loops

Two-loops, to the east and west of Whitehill Bordon, and a town-wide service were identified by Alan Baxter and Associates within the Whitehill Bordon ‘Transport Strategy’.

Figure 2: Previous East-West Loop Proposals

The East Loop served the town centre and provided a connection to the communities of Oakhanger, West Worldham, Hartley Mauditt, Selborne and Greatham. The West Loop served the town centre and provided a connection to Sleaford, Churt, Arford, Stanford, Headley Down, Headley.

1.3.2 Option 2 – Town-Wide Service The town-wide route was intended to service the communities of Whitehill and Bordon, using the A325, Oakhanger Road, Forest Road and Conde Way. A system of two town loops (through a ‘figure of 8’ service) were suggested to minimise travel times to the town’s facilities. The town-wide route would also replace the existing Bordon Link Service, which provides taxi-share to certain geographically excluded parts of the town. The route would service existing residential areas within the town, providing a regular and reliable connection to the town’s existing services and facilities.

Figure 3: Option 2 – Previous Town Wide Service Proposals

4

1.4

Route Issues

Following an on-site assessment the original proposed east and west loops are deemed to be unsuitable for a bus route.

The routes suggested follow primarily country lanes which are too narrow and steep for even a small, 16 seater bus to follow.

It is likely that the destinations covered by these routes would generate low patronage figures.

In addition, the routes would take a considerable amount of time to complete, resulting in a journey length which is unacceptable for passengers, and resulting in a poor service for the areas within the town that are more likely to use the bus.

The use of the ford by Mill Chase Road was tested, and was considered as an option. However, following discussions with local bus operators this route was considered inappropriate for the following reasons: a) the route will be inaccessible at certain times of year, due to increased water levels/ice, and these closures cannot be planned for, or passengers easily informed; b) there is evidence of mechanical failure to vehicles due to water entering the workings of the engines/starter motors; c) there is a clear Health and Safety issue, in that should a vehicle ever become stranded in the ford (of which there is a risk) you are putting the safety of bus passengers and the driver at risk.

As such, the use of the ford has been discounted.

5

2.0 Revised Options The project has allocated £500,000 towards the delivery of improved Bus Services within Whitehill Bordon, which based on industry costs of a service costing around £130,000 per annum, would suggest that this would fund a one-vehicle bus service for 3-4 years. The final service will depend upon the tender returns, but each bus option considered here has been designed to maximise the sum of this available funding.

A full assessment of potential routes was undertaken during May and June 2011. Routes were driven, and timings were recorded at different points along each of the routes. The time taken to complete each route has been listed under each of the Options below. These timings include estimated additional times for stops/pick ups and layovers. The approximate length of each route is shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Route Lengths Length of Route option 1 option 2 option 3 - loop 1 option 3 - loop 2 option 3 loop 3 option 3 - total

miles 11.81 17.45 17.97 25.21 21.88 94.32

kilometres 19.01 28.09 11.71 40.56 35.21 134.58

Three revised options are proposed for further consideration and consultation:

2.1

Option 1 – Town Based Service

This provides a local, town based service, replacing the existing car share service with a public service (non-bookable) and expanding the area in which the current car share system operates, ensuring it serves main destinations and residential areas of the town.

This option increases accessibility throughout Whitehill, Bordon, Lindford and Standford. The route covers two loops (in a figure of eight) and returns to the town centre after each separate loop to minimise route journey times. This option provides a fairly frequent service (covering both loops and two visits to the town centre each hour), and ensures the bus is highly visible to local residents. Services would operate throughout the day with potential for evening services (depending on Tender Submissions).

A detailed description of the route is provided in Appendix 1, and is shown in Figure 4 below.

Table 3 Option 1 Route Timings Approx Time of Full Circuit (no stops) Approx Time of Full Circuit (with stops) Break Period for Lunch

40 minutes 1 hour 1 hour

Total Number Services Per Day (based on 10 hour day) Total Distance Covered (11.81miles full circuit)

9 107 miles

Figure 4: Option 1 – Town Based Service

6

2.1.1 Benefits It is believed that the majority of visitors to Bordon town centre live within, or close to the town itself. It is likely that a greater proportion of people living within the town do not have access to an alternative mode of transport, than those living in more rural areas, where car ownership is high.

7

Therefore, this service option would provide the greatest cost-benefit ratios, compared with other options, and would be likely to attract the greatest patronage by virtue of the level of service that can be provided.

Limiting the radius of the service would ensure a higher (hourly) frequency than other options, improving the quality of the service for passengers, and increasing patronage figures. Providing a higher frequency service within the most densely populated areas will increase visibility of the bus, which will be branded to promote the ethos of the Eco-town project.

Providing a service which is used regularly by residents will help to promote a positive image of public transport and the Eco-town project. This will help to encourage behavioural change now, and in the future, and will support other projects.

2.1.2 Disbenefits The town-wide service would not serve all of the wider local communities surrounding Whitehill Bordon and would not improve social inclusion within these areas. Although the route covers the most densely populated areas it could be argued that the majority of these residents are within walking distance of local services, and would walk rather than use public transport for the majority of local journeys.

The route would need to be particularly careful not to directly compete with existing commercial services, particularly services 13 and 18.

S This option is similar to the previous TESCO funded service that was cancelled when developer funding ceased. There was not sufficient patronage to make the previous service financially viable.

2.2 Option 2 - Town Based Service with Greatham Connection As set out in Option 1, but this option includes an additional link to Blackmoor, Greatham and Longmoor in order to fill the gap in public transport service provision to the south, linking at Greatham to service 38 which travels to Alton, Selbourne, Greatham, Liss Petersfield, 5 times a day. This additional link to the south could operate on selected loops only, in order to maximise the frequency of the service within the town.

An assessment was carried out to consider continuing the route to Liss, but this created an additional journey time of some 30 minutes (not including time lost at bus stops), and as passengers would be able to link to a southbound service in Greatham, this option was not considered further.

The full route is illustrated in Figure 5 below. A full list of route points is provided in Appendix 1.

Table 4: Option 2 Route Timings Approx Time of Full Circuit (no stops) Approx Time of Full Circuit (with stops) Break Period for Lunch

1 hour 1 hour 30 minutes 1 hour

Total Number Services Per Day (based on 10 hour day) Total Distance Covered (17.45 miles full circuit)

6 105 miles

Figure 5: Option 2 – Town Based Service with Greatham Connection

8

2.2.1 Benefits There is currently a gap in the public transport service to the south of Whitehill Bordon, apart from one service provided on a Wednesday, which travels to Petersfield for market day. This link would improve accessibility for Whitehill Bordon residents travelling south and also for residents from Greatham/Liss who would like to travel to Whitehill Bordon. This route also serves the residential area of Blackmoor, improving accessibility and travel options for these residents.

9

2.2.2 Disbenefits This option would increase the length of time it takes to complete the service. This would reduce the attractiveness of the service for local residents, and reduce the visibility of the service in the town.

The level of demand to route to southbound services is unknown and unproven.

2.3 Option 3 – Wider Area Local Service This option provides a service that performs three loops, incorporating the main residential and commercial areas of Whitehill Bordon, the outlying villages, and providing a link to public transport services to the south.

This option would serve main locations such as shops, doctors surgeries and schools and nearby villages, which may currently have only a school service or non at all. This service option would link with Lindford, Headley, Headley Down, Standford, Oakhanger, Kingsley, Blackmoor, Greatham and Longmoor, as well Bordon and Whitehill, providing a broad coverage of local populations.

The service returns to the town centre after each individual loop. This increases the time to complete the whole circuit, but is considered essential in order that passengers are able to reach the most popular destinations, without having to complete more than one loop. Passengers would be unwilling to use the service if it completed the whole circuit (each of the three loops) with only one visit to the town centre.

The full route is illustrated in Figure 6 below. A full list of route points is provided in Appendix 1.

Table 5: Option 3 Route Timings Loop 1: North East Approx Time of Full Circuit (no stops) Approx Time of Full Circuit (with stops) Total Distance Covered (17.97 miles Loop1)

40 minutes 55 minutes

Loop 2: South Approx Time of Full Circuit (no stops) Approx Time of Full Circuit (with stops) Total Distance Covered (25.21 miles Loop2)

50 minutes 1 hour 15 minutes

Loop 3: North West Approx Time of Full Circuit (no stops) Approx Time of Full Circuit (with stops) Total Distance Covered (21.88 miles Loop3)

50 minutes 1 hour 15 minutes

Break Period for Lunch

1 hour

Total Time for 3 Loops

3 hours 25 minutes

Total Number Services Per Day (based on 10 hour day) Total Distance Covered (94.32 miles 3 Loops)

<3 Approx 235 miles

Figure 6: Option 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Wider Area Local Service

10

2.3.1 Benefits This option would ensure that all areas within the town, and surrounding villages, are served by public transport, providing alternative travel options to a wider population. This would increase visibility of the branded, low-emission vehicle, across a wider population, and help to raise awareness of the Eco-Town project.

11

2.3.1 Disbenefits Serving such a wide area with one vehicle does increase the time to complete the whole circuit considerably, and would mean that frequency would be restricted. The total time to complete the three loops is approximately 3 hours 25 minutes. There would also need to be a lunch break of 1 hour. This would result in less than 3 full services per day on each loop.

Serving such a wide area does significantly reduce the attractiveness of the service to local residents, which is likely to result in very low patronage figures. Passengers would have to wait approximately 3 hours for a return journey. This reduces the visibility of the service within Whitehill Bordon, and in effect becomes a negative promotional tool. In addition, there are proportionally very few potential users of the service living within the wider areas, whilst the majority of potential users are unlikely to use the service due to its infrequency.

This option would also cover areas which currently have a commercial service, which has further implications.

2.4 Further Considerations A large proportion of these routes cover areas already served by commercial services. In the case of services 13 and 18, these operate at 1 per hour and 2 per hour respectively. There are issues surrounding the provision of a supported service on a commercial route which would need to be resolved.

Notwithstanding this, the service options would not be likely to be in direct competition with the commercial services which provide a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;through-routeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rather than a local service. If they are timetabled effectively they could increase the number of available bus services to 2 or 3 per hour.

Further investigations could be carried out to identify whether there is sufficient demand for this level of service.

It may be that a combination of options is most suitable for Whitehill Bordon. A mix that is tailored specifically to the needs of the community. For example, Option 1 could be the basic route, but there may be a need to alter/extend this route at school drop off/pick up times, in order to benefit some of the outlying villages. In addition, whilst there is a need for a public transport link to the south, to fill the current gap in provision, this could operate on selected journeys only, in order to tie in with timings of the commercial service serving Greatham (which only operates 6 times per day), and also to increase the frequency of the new service within the town area. This could only be considered through consultation.

It should be noted that there may be changes to existing services in October 2011, following the Bus Subsidy Review.

12

3.0 Potential Patronage In consideration of potential patronage of the routes, the populations of both the town and the surrounding areas were calculated by interrogating MOSAIC data.

Table 6 below shows all Households/Populations figures for each route option, and also the numbers of Households/Population who are most likely to use public transport. It should be noted however, that in the town area of each Option the potential resident catchment may be less likely to use the service being already within walking distance of the townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s services.

Table 6: Household/Population Numbers and Potential Patronage All MosaicGroups (2009) within 400m of Route Route Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 *Houshold and Populations estimates 2008 **MosaicGroups most likely to use public transport(2009) within 400m of Route Route Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 *Houshold and Populations estimates 2008 - groups **Mosaic Groups I, M, N, O, G

Households* 6112 6396 8143

Population* 14979 15812 20132

Households*

Population*

445 445 519

1108 1108 1276

The plans below shows the 400m catchment areas serviced by the different route options: Figure 7: Areas Reached by Option 1

13

Figure 8: Areas Reached by Option 2

14

Figure 9: Areas Reached by Option 3

15

16

4.0 School Catchment Areas Using postcode data, the maps below show the number of pupils travelling by car within each of the 3 route options proposed. These cover pupil catchment areas for each of the schools in Whitehill Bordon, and also for Greatham Primary School and The Holme CE Primary School, as these fall within the area served by the different routes.

Where pupil numbers are suitable for the size of vehicle selected for the service, the proposed routes could be adapted to include one or more school runs. For example, Option 1 could include a link to Oakhanger at school run times, if appropriate.

Figure 10: Pupils Travelling by Car â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Option 1

17

Figure 11: Pupils Travelling By Car â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Option 2

18

Figure 12: Pupils Travelling By Car â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Option 3

19

20

5.0 Vehicle Opportunities It is implicit that the service would operate using a low carbon vehicle, in which case there are two options for running the service.

One is to purchase and operate a bespoke vehicle for the Eco-town project. In this case the Tenders for the services would be provided on the basis that the vehicle would be provided to the successful operator for use and maintenance.

A second option would be to invite Tenders on the basis that the bus operator supply a vehicle that meets the necessary environmentally friendly criteria and standards set out.

Preliminary research has been undertaken into the type of technology available, and suitability for the project. Options considered include; • • • •

Electric vehicles Hybrid vehicles Filter technologies Efficiency technologies

Emissions and fuel efficiency for all new vehicles has fallen significantly in recent years, a trend which will continue into the future. Euro 51 emissions standards will come into effect from 1 January 2012 for light commercial vehicles (including minibuses), covering carbon monoxide, particulates, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. This will require new vehicles to meet stringent emissions targets and mean that normally aspirated vehicles can compete with alternative fuel vehicles in terms of their environmental credentials.

In addition, advances in technology available such as Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF), Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) provide further emissions reductions. The cDPF used by Ford cuts CO2 emissions by 10 per cent when compared to the standard engine The Ford Transit minibus, referred to in several examples below, will be available in the Euro 5 version from September 2011. Standard reductions in emissions and fuel consumption can be further enhanced by driver behaviour and further vehicle modifications.

1

See Appendix 2 for more detailed explanation of Euro Emissions Standards.

21

5.1

Electric Vehicles

Electric vehicles have a lower, but generally acceptable, top speed (50mph maximum), and also have a limited range between charges (65-70 miles maximum with standard batteries). However, to achieve the maximum range the vehicle must be driven within the optimum operating criteria.

To operate a bus service such as those described in Section 2 the range between charges would be significantly reduced due to driving patterns and terrain. Larger batteries can be purchased as an option on some vehicles, which can increase the range to 90-95 miles.

Recharging can take a significant length of time, around 8 hours for standard batteries. If the larger batteries are fitted to the vehicle recharging time increases to around 10 hours. Fast charge units can be fitted as an option to some vehicles. This reduces the length of time for a full recharge, but on standard batteries this is still likely to take around 4 hours and 5 hours for larger batteries. A partial recharge during the day can extend the vehicle range (by about 15-20 miles for a 1 hour charge), and the vehicles can be fully recharged overnight.

Electric vehicles offer great potential to reduce emissions in city environments, but are perhaps less suited to a less densely populated and/or rural location. In the Whitehill Bordon context, with the length and frequency of each proposed route option it is unlikely that there would be sufficient charge available in current ECV technology to run the service all day without re-charge.

Smith Electric Vehicles use a standard Ford Transit minibus, and convert this to a fully electric vehicle. Any modifications to the bodywork/seats/access would need to be carried out independently. There are two options regarding batteries: •

• •

Standard batteries provide enough charge to drive a maximum of 65 miles (actual mileage is likely to be less due to terrain, driving style etc.). This can be boosted by a further 15-20 miles by carrying out a partial re-charge of half an hour to an hour (for example during the drivers’ lunch break). Standard batteries take approximately 8 hours to fully recharge.

Larger batteries provide enough charge to drive approximately 90 miles. Again, this can be boosted by a partial recharge. Larger batteries take approximately 10 hours to fully recharge.

Rapid charge technology can be provided, and this takes approximately 4 hours to recharge the standard size, and 5 hours for the larger size batteries.

The largest minibus available has 17 seats, although if the vehicle needed to be modified, for example to allow for wheelchair access, this would reduce the number of seats. The lead in time for the Euro V model is 20 weeks. Costs are as follows: • • •

17 seat vehicle with standard batteries - £70,000 17 seat vehicle with larger batteries - £79,000 Rapid charge unit – additional £7,000

If a larger bus is required, Optare and Alexander Dennis can provide hybrid and/or fully electric vehicles, and have a number of successful low carbon bus examples already operating in Britain.

The smallest bus option is the Optare Solo. This is available as a fully electric or hybrid drive has 25 fixed seats, and 3 tip up seats in the wheelchair bay. This configuration provides space for a wheelchair and a manually operated folding ramp.

Vehicles can also be fitted with EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) and SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) technology, to further reduce emissions from the hybrid option, or from standard diesel engines.

The approximate range of the Optare fully electric vehicle is 70 miles. This can be boosted by approximately 20 miles with a partial recharge of one hour. The costs are as follows:

22

• • •

Standard base price for Solo SR 8.1m vehicle is £104,112 Electric vehicle package with an on-board charger costs an additional £118,000 Total costs are £222,112 for an electric vehicle.

5.2

Hybrid Vehicles

Hybrid vehicles use two or more distinct power sources. These combine an internal combustion engine with one or more electric motors. There are a variety of hybrid technologies that can be used, which operate in different ways.

Optare produce a hybrid bus, as described above. Alexander Dennis also produce the Enviro200H bus, with the smallest option providing 26 seats with 3 tip ups for wheelchair access. Both these vehicles are classified as EEVs (Enhanced Environmentally-friendly Vehicles) and are certified as complying as a Low Carbon Emission Bus (Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership). These vehicles are defined by the Government as those producing 30% less emissions of greenhouse gases than a normal diesel bus, and their emissions standards fall betweens the current Euro V and the forthcoming Euro 64evels. The cost of the Optare Solo is shown below: • • •

Standard base price for Solo SR 8.1m vehicle is £104,112 Hybrid vehicle package costs an additional £109,000 Total costs are £213,000 for a hybrid vehicle

Ashwood can provide a hybrid minibus. In this option electric power is used to provide torque assistance to the internal combustion engine. The vehicle uses an electric motor/generator, attached to the drive shaft, to assist the drive of the vehicle in heavy load situations and charge the battery during deceleration. This electric torque assist reduces both CO2 and fuel consumption as the engine does not need to work so hard. The vehicles consume between 15-20% less fuel and produce 25% less CO2 than standard diesel equivalents. The vehicle has improved range over allelectric (and standard diesel) vehicles, and there is no plug-in charging required as the vehicle charges on the road through regenerative braking.

The Ashwood hybrid vehicle uses the standard Ford Transit minibus, with hybrid technology retrofitted. This option comes complete with gearshift indicator, to advise the driver when to shift up or down for optimum performance.

The new Euro V model will be available from September 2011, and will have a maximum of 17 seats. The lead in time for the Euro 5 model is 16 weeks. The model is available in either medium or high roofed options. Current Euro 4 prices are: • •

Medium roofed hybrid – approximately £ 27,000 (+vat) High roofed hybrid – approximately £27,500 (+vat)

5.3

Filter and Efficiency Technologies

Filter technologies, such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and efficiency technologies, such as ‘Green Road Technology’2 can also have a significant impact on emissions. Green Road technology is a driver assistance system designed to optimise fuel economy through driver monitoring and telemetry.

2

Green Road technology is a driver assistance system designed to optimise fuel economy through driver monitoring and telemetry. See Link in Section 5.5 below for further information.

23

Ashwoods are able to fit an EcoDrive system to the Ford Transit minibus. This provides real-time driver feedback in the form of an ‘Optimal Operating Efficiency’ display and gearshift indicator. The display provides the driver with a visual ‘sweetspot’ for engine efficiency in all driving states.

Drivers intuitively alter their driving style to drive within the engine’s most efficient zone, therefore reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by between 5-10%, depending on the drive cycle.

These models come in either medium or high roofed options. Current Euro 4 prices are: • •

Medium roofed EcoDrive - £ 19,584 (+vat) High roofed EcoDrive - £19,901 (+vat)

5.4

Vehicle Option Summary

The electric vehicle option has been investigated, but is considered unsuitable for any of the route options proposed in this report. There are likely to be issues with range, which can only be overcome by more regular partial re-charges, which will further reduce the level and quality of service that can be provided.

There are two options for hybrid technology vehicles. A small, maximum 17 seat Ford Transit minibus, or a small, 28/29 seat Optare Solo or Alexander Dennis Enviro 200H bus (based on these being the smallest buses on the market). Further surveys would need to be carried out to confirm potential patronage and determine the most suitable vehicle.

The price difference between the minibus and bus options is substantial. However, it is possible that a similar level of service could be achieved through the Tender process, if a bus operator provided their own (low-emission) vehicle, rather than the Eco-town project purchasing a vehicle outright.

There are accessibility issues with the Ford Transit minibus. It would need to be modified for the use of wheelchairs/pushchairs etc. This would further increase the cost, and reduce the number of passenger seats. The bus options already have ramps and wheelchair/pushchair access. The bus options also provide for future increases in passenger numbers.

The third option is to provide a standard diesel-engine vehicle for the service. The tables in Appendix 2 contain a summary of the EU emission standards for light-duty (minibuses) and heavyduty (buses) vehicles which all new vehicles must meet, and their implementation dates. New vehicles how have to comply with strict emissions standards, and these can be further improved through filters and driver behaviour. Following consultation and selection of the route option, further studies should be carried out prior to the Tender stage, to determine the level of environmental benefit that would be achieved by an electric or hybrid vehicle, compared with the cleanest package of measures applied to a new, standard engine bus. There may be only

5.5

Useful links

http://www.ashwoods.org/index.php http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com/ourranges.asp.htm http://www.optare.com/op_low_carbon.htm http://alexander-dennis.com/product-details.php?s=82&subs=43&tableID=220&itemID=4 http://www.greenroad.com/

24

http://www.cleanvehicle.eu/startseite/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_environmentally_friendly_vehicle#Enhanced_environmentall y_friendly_vehicle

25

6.0 Support to Service Improvements Whilst enhancing and extending physical penetration of public transport in the area is likely to have the greatest impact on affecting travel behaviour, to be successful these services need to be well branded and promoted, and people need to be incentivised to travel. Opportunities to provide incentives through ticket subsidies, group tickets and discounts will be explored as part of the tender process and ongoing further Early Wins projects. Additionally the service extensions will be well publicised through the branding and communications strategy for the project, including the shortly to be launched Transport dedicated Web-pages.

To support the service extensions, significant investment is being put into local bus stop infrastructure with modern eco-technology bus shelters to be installed along the A325 corridor to serve the existing and new services. This will raise the profile of public transport and improve the image of local bus travel.

26

7.0 Conclusions and Next Steps People change their own behaviour in response to other changes around them, in their understanding of the world and in their perceptions - including their perceptions of themselves. For the service to be successful in enabling change: • • • •

it should be possible to see advantages, e.g. costs or benefits; it should support perceptions of self or aspirations; there needs to be an awareness that other people are using the service; there needs to be confidence in the service, and that it is suitable for their purposes.

A branded, low-emission vehicle would act as a highly-visible promotional tool, to raise awareness of the Eco-town Project, and act as a reminder of the future aims for the town. However, it is important not to generate a negative message at this point, which will have a lasting effect well into the future.

In order to generate a positive message it is important that the service is well used. To ensure this we need to provide a service which is of good quality, frequent, and which serves the right areas.

This is even more important in this difficult economic time. Running an empty service, on a long circuitous route is unlikely to encourage bus use, and is likely to cause dissatisfaction and apathy towards future services amongst residents.

It is felt that Option 1 – the Town Based Service route is likely to achieve the highest patronage figures, to provide the highest quality service, and to act as the most effective promotional and marketing tool.

However, a questionnaire survey of the areas in question would provide an indication of travel patterns, and how much the service would be used. This would help to inform the decision on the most appropriate route option and could also be used to adapt the suggested options. This would also identify the most suitable vehicle size and engine/technology for the route, either minibus or small standard bus.

Following consultation and selection of the route option, further investigations should also be carried out into the suitability of the vehicle options (hybrid or the latest Euro standard engine vehicle with additional filter and efficiency technologies fitted).

7.1

Service Delivery Programme

Timescales July 2011 August 2011 AugustOctober 2011

November 2011

Key Event/Milestone Complete final draft Bus Service Proposals report Prepare Bus Service Proposals report for external consultation Consult on bus route proposals and vehicle options

Action Circulate report for comments and internal consultation Amend report following comments

Who KH WS KH

Publicize at public consultation

Project Group

Questionnaire to WB residents, local villages, and schools to assess level of demand Amend report following public consultation

Finalise/confirm Bus Route Proposals

27

KH

November 2011 December 2011 TBC May-July 2012

Finalise vehicle options Implement the tender process Deliver service

Carry out analysis of vehicle options following confirmation of route and assessment of suitability Produce tender documents for purchase and/or operation of bus/bus Service Dependent on lead-in times and vehicle options.

28

KH PTG KH

Appendix 1: Detailed Route Descriptions Option 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Town Based Service from fire station, route east along Lindford Road, continue into Liphook Road, Standford Lane right into Whitehill Road, continue into Walldown Road right into Liphook Road right into A325 Petersfield Road right into Conde Way left into Forest Road right into Pinehill Road/Forest Centre continuing into Apollo Drive left into Hollybrook Park left into Chalet Hill right into High Street left into Station Road right into Oakhanger Road left into Hogmoor Road left into Firgrove road left into A325 Petersfield Road right into Conde Way left into Forest Road right into Pinehill Road /Forest Centre continuing into Apollo Drive left into Hollybrook Park left into Chalet Hill right into High St return to fire station and begin loop again

Option 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Town Based Service with Greatham Connection from fire station, route east along Lindford Road, continue into Liphook Road, Standford Lane turn right at Whitehill Road, continue into Walldown Road rights into Liphook Road right into A325 Petersfield Road right into Conde Way left into Forest Road right into Pinehill Road/Forest Centre continuing into Apollo Drive left into Hollybrook Park left into Chalet Hill right into High Street left into Station Road right into Oakhanger Road left into Hogmoor Road left into Firgrove road left into A325 Petersfield Road right into Conde Way left into Forest Road right into Pinehill Road /Forest Centre continuing into Apollo Drive left into Hollybrook Park

29

left into Chalet Hill left into High St right into Firgrove Road left into Drift Road left into Blackmoor Road right into A325 Petersfield Road 3rd exit at the roundabout into Digby Way, left into Petersfield Road left into Longmoor Road first exit at the roundabout into A325 Woolmer Road (bus could stop at Longmoor Camp should there be a demand for this) 3rd exit at the roundabout into A325 Petersfield Road left into Blackmoor Road right into Drift Road right into Firgrove Road left into A325 Petersfield Road right into Conde Way right into Pinehill Road /Forest Centre continuing into Apollo Drive left into Hollybrook Park left into Chapel Hill right into High St/Camp Road, return to fire station and begin loop again

Option 3: Wider Area Local Service, Loop 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; North East from fire station to Headley Down: east along Lindford Road, into Headley Road, Mill Lane, Crabtree Lane, Fullers Vale, Beech Hill return via Beech Hill, Fullers Vale, Crabtree Lane, Mill Lane, Headley Road turn left into B3004 Liphook Road, continue into Liphook Road, Standford Lane turn right at Whitehill Road, continue into Walldown Road rights into Liphook Road right into A325 Petersfield Road right into Conde Way left into Forest Road right into Pinehill Road/Forest Centre continuing into Apollo Drive left into Hollybrook Park left into Chapel Hill right into A325 High Street Option 3: Wider Area Local Service, Loop 2 - South from end of Loop 1 (junction of Chapel Hill/A325) turn left into A325 High Street right into Firgrove Road left into Drift Road left into Blackmoor Road right into A325 Petersfield Road 3rd exit at the roundabout into Digby Way, left into Petersfield Road left into Longmoor Road first exit at the roundabout into A325 Woolmer Road (bus could stop at Longmoor Camp should there be a demand for this) 3rd exit at the roundabout into A325 Petersfield Road left into Blackmoor Road right into Drift Road

30

left into Firgrove Road right into Hogmoor Road right into Oakhanger Lane left into Station Road right into A325 Camp Road left into Conde Way left into Forest Road right into Pinehill Road/Forest Centre, continuing into Apollo Drive left into Hollybrook Park left into Chalet Hill right into A325 Camp Road, to fire station Option 3: Wider Area Local Service Loop 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; North West from fire station junction turn left into Station road turn right into Oakhanger Road follow road to Oakhanger turn right into B3004 to Kinglsey turn right onto A325 south left at Conde Way left into Pinehill Road/Forest Centre, straight into Apollo Drive left into Hollybrook Park left into Chalet Hill right into A325 High Street return to fire station and begin Loop 1 again.

31

Appendix 2: European Emission Standards European emission standards define the acceptable limits for exhaust emissions of new vehicles sold in EU member states. The emission standards are defined in a series of European Union directives staging the progressive introduction of increasingly stringent standards.

Currently, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), total hydrocarbon (THC), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) are regulated for most vehicle types, including cars, lorries, trains, tractors and similar machinery, barges, but excluding seagoing ships and aeroplanes. For each vehicle type, different standards apply. Compliance is determined by running the engine at a standardised test cycle. Non-compliant vehicles cannot be sold in the EU, but new standards do not apply to vehicles already on the roads. No use of specific technologies is mandated to meet the standards, though available technology is considered when setting the standards. New models introduced must meet current or planned standards, but minor lifecycle model revisions may continue to be offered with pre-compliant engines.

The pollutant emissions from road vehicles are regulated separately for light-duty vehicles (cars and light vans) and for heavy-duty vehicles (trucks and buses). For light-duty vehicles, the emission standard currently in force is Euro 4, as defined by Directive 98/70/EC which is one of the Directives amending Directive 70/220/EEC. Following the CAFE programme and the resulting Thematic Strategy on air pollution, new Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards have already been agreed by Council and Parliament (see relevant DG ENTR web page).

The legislation currently in force for heavy-duty vehicles is Directive 2005/55/EC (agreed in codecision) and Directive 2005/78/EC (implementing provisions). This legislation defines the emission standard currently in force, Euro IV, as well as the next stage (Euro V) which will enter into force in October 2008. In addition, it defines a non-binding standard called Enhanced Environmentally-friendly Vehicle (EEV). Enhanced environmentally friendly vehicle or EEV is a term used in the European emission standards for the definition of a "clean vehicle" > 3.5 tonne in the category M2 and M3. The standard lies between the levels of Euro V and Euro VI. The following tables contain a summary of the EU emission standards for light-duty (minibuses) and heavy-duty (buses) vehicles which all new vehicles must meet and their implementation dates.

Dates in the tables refer to new type approvals; the dates for all type approvals are in most cases one year later (EU type approvals are valid longer than one year).

European emission standards for light commercial vehicles 1305 kg (Category N1-I), g/km Tier

Date

CO

THC

NMHC

NOx

HC+NOx

PM

P

Diesel Euro 1

October 1994

2.72

-

-

-

0.97

0.14

-

Euro 2

January 1998

1.0

-

-

-

0.7

0.08

-

Euro 3

January 2000

0.64

-

-

0.50

0.56

0.05

-

Euro 4

January 2005

0.50

-

-

0.25

0.30

0.025

-

Euro 5

September 2009

0.500 -

-

0.180 0.230

0.005

-

Euro 6 (future)

September 2014

0.500 -

-

0.080 0.170

0.005

-

October 1994

2.72

-

-

-

-

Petrol (Gasoline) Euro 1

-

32

0.97

Euro 2

January 1998

2.2

-

-

-

0.5

-

-

Euro 3

January 2000

2.3

0.20

-

0.15

-

-

-

Euro 4

January 2005

1.0

0.10

-

0.08

-

-

-

Euro 5

September 2009

1.000 0.100 0.068

0.060 -

0.005*

-

Euro 6 (future)

September 2014

1.000 0.100 0.068

0.060 -

0.005*

-

* Applies only to vehicles with direct injection engines European emission standards for light commercial vehicles 1305 kg â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1760 kg (Category N1II), g/km Tier

Date

CO

THC

NMHC

NOx

HC+NOx

PM

P

Diesel Euro 1

October 1994

5.17

-

-

-

1.4

0.19

-

Euro 2

January 1998

1.25

-

-

-

1.0

0.12

-

Euro 3

January 2001

0.80

-

-

0.65

0.72

0.07

-

Euro 4

January 2006

0.63

-

-

0.33

0.39

0.04

-

Euro 5

September 2010

0.630 -

-

0.235 0.295

0.005

-

Euro 6 (future)

September 2015

0.630 -

-

0.105 0.195

0.005

-

Euro 1

October 1994

5.17

-

-

-

1.4

-

-

Euro 2

January 1998

4.0

-

-

-

0.6

-

-

Euro 3

January 2001

4.17

0.25

-

0.18

-

-

-

Euro 4

January 2006

1.81

0.13

-

0.10

-

-

-

Euro 5

September 2010

1.810 0.130 0.090

0.075 -

0.005*

-

Euro 6 (future)

September 2015

1.810 0.130 0.090

0.075 -

0.005*

-

Petrol (Gasoline)

* Applies only to vehicles with direct injection engines European emission standards for light commercial vehicles >1760 kg max 3500 kg.

(Category N1-III & N2), g/km Tier

Date

CO

THC

NMHC

NOx

HC+NOx

PM

P

Diesel Euro 1

October 1994

6.9

-

-

-

1.7

0.25

-

Euro 2

January 1998

1.5

-

-

-

1.2

0.17

-

Euro 3

January 2001

0.95

-

-

0.78

0.86

0.10

-

Euro 4

January 2006

0.74

-

-

0.39

0.46

0.06

-

Euro 5 (future)

September 2010

0.740 -

-

0.280 0.350

0.005

-

Euro 6 (future)

September 2015

0.740 -

-

0.125 0.215

0.005

-

Euro 1

October 1994

6.9

-

-

-

1.7

-

-

Euro 2

January 1998

5.0

-

-

-

0.7

-

-

Euro 3

January 2001

5.22

0.29

-

0.21

-

-

-

Petrol (Gasoline)

33

Euro 4

January 2006

2.27

0.16

-

0.11

Euro 5 (future)

September 2010

2.270 0.160 0.108

Euro 6 (future)

September 2015

2.270 0.160 0.108

-

-

-

0.082 -

0.005*

-

0.082 -

0.005*

-

* Applies only to vehicles with direct injection engines

EU Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines, g/kWh (smoke in m 1) Tier Euro I Euro II

Date 1992, < 85 kW 1992, > 85 kW October 1996

ECE R-49

October 1998 October 1999 EEVs only

Euro III

Test cycle

ESC & ELR

October 2000

CO

HC

NOx

PM

4.5

1.1

8.0

0.612

4.5

1.1

8.0

0.36

4.0

1.1

7.0

0.25

4.0

1.1

7.0

0.15

1.0

0.25

2.0

0.02

0.15

2.1

0.66

5.0

0.10 0.13*

0.8

1.5

0.46

3.5

0.02

0.5 0.5

Euro IV

October 2005

Euro V

October 2008

1.5

0.46

2.0

0.02

Euro VI

January 2013

1.5

0.13

0.4

0.01

ESC & ELR

Smoke

* for engines of less than 0.75 dm swept volume per cylinder and a rated power speed of more than 3,000 per minute. EEV is "Enhanced environmentally friendly vehicle".

34