Light Rail – silver bullet for future urban mobility or waste of money

Sebastian Emig MALight, Regional and Suburban Rail Manager

International Association of Public Transport (UITP)

Light Rail Transit

•Introduction•Light Rail – THE panacea?•Conclusion

Traffic development in Europe

Changing life-styles

Light Rail – THE panacea?

What is BRT and LRT? 2 similar surface transport modes

• Quality features High frequency (~ down to 90 sec.) Higher operating speeds (~ 25 km/h) Fully or partly segregated alignment – high

reliability Attractive design: stations + vehicles Advanced ITS

Priority at traffic lightsReal Time informationSmartcard

P+R

What are differences then?“BRT is more flexible and more affordable than LRT”

Too simple to be true...

We need to look into:CapacityUrban integrationQuality and comfortEnvironmental impactPolitical engineeringEconomic evaluation

Capacity 1/2 Capacity is only one attribute

– Many cities opt for LRT when BRT could perhaps accomodate demand

• BRT: 3,000-8,000 pphpd• LRT: 3,000-11,000 pphpd

Easier capacity increase with LRT– Multiple unit operation – Automatic train control

Issue of system reserve capacity is crucial– Capability to accomodate future demand in

growing urban areas– Unwise to be at capacity limit from early days

• DLR going from 2,000 pphpd in 1987 to 20,000 pphpd by 2011

Capacity 2/2

In fact...• Full BRT headway can be quite high...

90 buses/hour/dir. >> 9000-12000 pax/h/dir

...but, there can be negative consequences: Reduced intersection performance

Min. headway reasonably related to traffic light cycle times

Need for strict enforcement at intersection More drivers needed (local wage conditions!) Relatively poor energy efficiency per pax

transported Amount of land required, especially at termini

No capacity reserve left / little “flexibility”

Urban integration 1/3• BRT can require more space than LRT

Alignment clearancesMulti-parameter: geometry, curvature, speed etc.

Potentially very large parking/layover facilities at termini Variable value of space as a commodity –

is BRT an enhancement to urban realm?

• LRT more conducive to transit oriented development and substantial upgrading of urban realm Not just better image of the city Measurable increase in land value Triggers inward investment and job creation Confidence in long-term in views of developers and

land-owners• Better coexistence of LRT with soft modes

Pedestrians and cyclists

• But! Economic deprivation cannot be “cured” by any

transport mode alone

Urban integration 2/3

• Croydon Tramlink, the south London tram scheme, fully operational since May 2000, attracted an inward investment in the area since then has exceeded £2 billion and has created a momentum of developers queuing to bring facilities to the area.

Urban integration 3/3

High quality is needed to attract non captive users and allow a modal shift towards PT

Depending on citizens expectations and purchasing power

International evidence that rail systems attract more users (10-15%) especially from car

Bus systems have poorer ride quality Rail systems can have higher reliability Other “image” factors

Quality and comfort 1/2

Quality and comfort 2/2

Axhausen, K. W., T. Haupt, B. Fell, and U. Heidl. Searching for the Rail Bonus: Results from a Panel SP/RP Study. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2001, pp. 353–369.

Attributes of route and guideway

32% / 19%

Local pollution Zero emission in sensitive areas

with LRT Less dependance on fossil fuels of LRT

Global warming Oil price inflation

Lower noise levels

Environmental impact 1/2

• City of Calgary uses commercial wind energy as the primary source of electricity. Before the switch to wind power, the tram’s energy supply accounted for about 20,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases and other air pollution each year.

= 4,000 cars/year

Environmental impact 2/2

Political engineering

• (Short–term) advantage for BRT Reap political benefits – “Quick Wins” “Ribbon-cutting” – political cycles (Sometimes) easier planning BRT often as introduction of new vehicles/stop

infrastructure more than whole ‘system’

BRT as 1st step towards LRT

Investment costs Operation costs

Vehicles Infrastructure

Economical evaluation 1/4

LRV ~20% project implementation costs Strong variations in LRV price

More due to technical variety Not off-the-shelf products Quite small orders compared to busses

Difference for capital cost on yearly basis per m²–~900-1,200 €/m²/y >> LRV (life cycle 30y)–~650 €/m²/y >> bus (life cycle 10y)

Source : H. Hondius

Economical evaluation 2/4

Large difference according to circumstances : Compulsory/optional investments

Civil eng.; structures; depots; utilities; track forms

Urban design budget (image) Operation strategies

partial/full priority and segregation Possibility to use existing facilities

Former railway alignment, depot …

BRT with full quality attributes can come close to LRT cost range

High quality has always a price!

Economical evaluation 3/4

In Western countries, expenses per seat*km for LRT can be half as much as for Bus – Efficient LRT lines cover their costs more easily – even

make a profit!! Bus operation costs highly determined by driver salaries

– In Europe, staff is ~75% of opex for bus against ~45% for LRT (local wage conditions!)

Reduced number of drivers with longer trains– To carry 10,000 pphpd, you need

~90 bus drivers~30 LRV drivers

Demand plays a major role– The higher demand, the greater the advantages for LRT

Economical evaluation 4/4

Attribute of PT modes

Qualitative criteria

Systems

Commercial speed (km/h)

Service reliability

Space occupation

Air pollution

Noise in street

Energy consumpt°

City network coverag

e

Image Costs

Bus 10-20

BRT 15-25

LRT 18-35

Metro 30-45

No magic formula for all circumstances! No “one fits all” decision-making

Choice highly dependant on local conditions: Available funding (CAPEX and OPEX) Availability and value of land Legal framework etc. Transportation demand (now & future) Local conditions & constraints Long-term political vision

Conclusions 1/3

Define a PT network for the area, with hierarchy of transport (masterplan)

Evaluate main corridor(s) requirements (demand) Only then select the most appropriate mode

BRT can provide some new options in PT offer Good improvement of bus services Overlapping areas with tram Conversion to LRT at later stage

Capacity increase easier with LRT Regeneration impact of LRT much higher

Conclusions 2/3

Each has its own merits and specific applications Both: opportunity to change image and boost PT

Conclusions 3/3

Pollution, Congestion, Urban sprawl, Quality of life

Solution : High quality public transport

It is not LRT vs. BRT

It is PT vs. car

Light Rail – silver bullet for future urban mobility or waste of money

Thank you for your attention

sebastian.emig@uitp.org