Transcript Lecture 9 BRT versus LRT, elements and cost comparison

Lecture 9
BRT versus LRT, elements
and cost comparison
Dr. Muhammad Adnan
Lecture Outline
•
•
•
•
Cost
Capacity
Catalyst for Development
BRT as Precursor for LRT
LRT -Definitions
• Light rail or light rail transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public
transportation that generally has a lower capacity and lower
speed than heavy rail and metro systems, but higher capacity
and higher speed than traditional street-running tram
systems.
• The term is typically used to refer to rail systems with rapidtransit-style features that usually use electric rail cars
operating mostly in private rights-of-ways separated from
other traffic but sometimes, if necessary, mixed with other
traffic in city streets.
TRB Definitions
•
There is some confusion about the definitions of different types of urban rail services. It is
not vehicle that defines the transit mode, but the quality of rights-of-way (ROW). The
Transportation Research Board (TRB) Light Rail Committee offers these definitions:
•
Streetcar: A steel wheel on rail transit mode, operating on-street, sharing the
pavement with other vehicles, with little or no priority signalling at intersections.
Light Rail Transit: A streetcar system that has extensive priority signalling at
intersections and at least 30% of it's route operating on ‘reserved rights-of-ways.’
LRT may be grade separated but must retain the ability to operate in mixed traffic.
Light rail which operates on grade separated ROWs are more commonly referred
to as Light Metro’s.
•
•
Light or Heavy Metro: A transit mode that operates on a fully grade separated (separated
from street level) ‘rights-of-ways.’ Unlike generic LRT, many metro’s, including monorail, are
proprietary transit systems and cannot share their ROW with other transit modes including
other metro’s.
LRT Travel Impacts
•
Rail tends to be more attract than conventional bus transit to discretionary
travelers (people who have the option of driving), including commuters, visitors,
and people traveling to major sport and cultural events if they are located along
transit lines. In addition, where LRT provides a catalyst for more accessible land
use, it tends to increase overall transit transport (rail and bus), increase overall
walking transport, and reduce per capita vehicle ownership and use (Litman, 2004;
Lane, 2008; Kenworthy, 2008).
•
There is some debate concerning the relative attractiveness of rail compared with
BRT (bus systems that provide high service quality). Some research indicates
greater demand for rail than bus transit (NJARP, 2006; Henry and Litman, 2006),
but some experts argue that given comparable speeds, comfort features and
promotion, bus service can be equally attractive (for discussion see Litman,
2006a).
Cost/Benefits
•
According to analysis described in Litman (2004) residents of cities with high-quality Rail
Transit systems pay approximately $100 annually per capita in additional transit subsidies,
and save approximately $500 annually per capita in direct consumer transportation
(automobile and transit) expenditures, indicating a high return on investment.
•
Krizek, et al. (2009), found that the number of destinations that could be accessed within 20
minutes of travel time by public transit increased significantly after the Hiawatha LRT line was
built in the Twin Cities.
•
According to American Public Transportation Association data (APTA, various years), Light Rail
Transit has higher operating costs per passenger-mile than other forms of transit. However,
this reflects the fact that LRT systems are located in dense urban areas where any
transportation service is costly to provide, and because many LRT systems are relatively new
and still building ridership.
•
When all costs (including roadway, parking, vehicle, and external) are considered, Rail Transit
is often more cost effective per passenger-trip than accommodating additional automobile
travel or attracting more bus transit users on congested urban corridors. Claims that rail
transit projects cost more than alternatives often consider only a portion of total costs
(Litman 2006a).
BRT vs LRT (1)
• COST
– By most reports, BRT is generally cheaper to build than
LRT, although the cost savings are less in systems that
involve construction of a segregated busway.
– In its September 2001 report comparing BRT and LRT
systems in the U.S., for instance, the GAO reported BRT
capital costs (adjusted for 2000 dollars) that ranged from a
low of $200,000 per mile for an arterial, street-based
system, up to $55 million per mile for a dedicated busway
system. By contrast, the LRT systems reviewed by the
report had capital costs ranging from $12.4 million to
$118.8 million per mile.
BRT vs LRT (1)
– The long-term operating costs for an LRT line are typically less than for
BRT. Although buses are generally cheaper than LRT cars, their life span is only
half as long, and they cost more to operate for the simple reason that each
bus needs its own driver, while a chain of LRT cars can be piloted by a single
person.
– When BRT occupies a segregated busway, has upgraded stations and highquality buses, and serves a sufficiently dense population, BRT can begin to
approach the ridership and service levels of rail transit, at a lesser initial
investment
– As those levels of ridership rise, however, LRT per-passenger operational costs
are typically less than BRT, and the type of “upscale” BRT that will appeal to a
broader swath of riders is more expensive to build.
– Still, at least some evidence suggests that BRT can offer overall cost savings,
despite its higher operating costs over all but the lowest range of capacity. On
the other hand, for a corridor expected to grow rapidly into the upper reaches
of BRT capacity, LRT may end up being cheaper in the long run.
BRT vs LRT
• Capacity
– A BRT service in a segregated busway that uses
standard buses and has limited stops can carry up
to 5,000 to 8,000 passengers per peak hour. With
higher-capacity buses (such as an articulated
vehicle that carries 120 passengers), that number
rises to 12,000. By comparison, a well-designed
LRT system can handle more than 30 four-car
trains per hour, and can accommodate over
20,000 passengers per peak hour.
BRT vs LRT
•
Catalyst for development
– BRT so far seems to have less success than LRT as a catalyst for transit-oriented
development. One simple reason is that Bus Transit-Oriented Development, or BTOD, is
still a relatively new field, so that experts are few and far between and leadership has
yet to emerge.
– There exist a host of other explanations, beginning with the fact that rail projects tend
to take place on a larger scale, so that their associated development occurs at a greater
magnitude.
– Rail may also attract more investment because it is perceived as more permanent than a
bus system. The “newness” of a rail system can encourage investment in areas
undergoing a radical change in land use.
– If the goal is to stimulate development at stations along a corridor that has or is poised
to see sufficient growth and density, then LRT may be a better choice. BRT tends to be
more successful where the lower capital investment makes more sense given a lower
level of projected ridership, and where uncoordinated growth has led to low density
housing coupled with significant traffic congestion.
– To put it bluntly, LRT is a better catalyst for growth, while BRT may be a better response
to sprawl.
• Putting bus before the train
– BRT might also provide a way to build ridership in advance
of LRT construction. This rationale fueled the decision
by Calgary—a city with a robust and successful LRT
system—to build BRT along its own northwest
corridor. Paris is another example of a city that is using
BRT as a precursor to eventual rail transit, and that city has
aggressively pursued a system of high-quality, exclusive
right-of-way BRT systems on suburban boulevards.
– A researcher (Diaz, N) quoted as “If you put all your eggs in
the LRT basket, without a contingency plan, then you may
see nothing happen for many, many years”.
Does Light Rail "Rob" Bus Service, or
Make it Prosper?
•
A familiar canard circulated by many light rail opponents is that light rail "robs" bus
service, which then "suffers". As a result, opponents claim, overall system ridership
plummets.
•
This is not just false ... it's the exact opposite of the truth. in reality, for almost
every single new light rail installation, total transit system ridership has soared.
•
•
The reasons:
First, light rail tends to be much cheaper to operate; the cost savings are passed on
to expansion of bus service.
Second, appropriate bus routes frequently are restructured into crosstown and
feeder routes to interface more effectively with light rail, thus opening new,
crossways bus corridor service and attracting new bus ridership. Especially in the
fast-growing suburbs, this provides brandnew transit access to and between new
suburban origins and destinations which have been unaffordable and almost
impossible to serve with traditional, radial bus routes.
Source: GL Thompson + TG Matoff, "The Network Approach: its Effect on the
Performance of American Transit investments" (TRB, Dallas, Nov. 2000)
Third, the overall transit system gets a better "image" with light rail, and many
people who never previously rode transit will hop on a bus, often to access the
light rail service.
•
•
Light Rail and Lower-income Transit
Riders
• Critics of light rail transit (LRT) and other rail transit proposals
frequently portray rail transit as catering almost exclusively to
affluent riders while neglecting service for those who are less
affluent and transit-dependent.
• The ridership base gets bigger, particularly by adding riders from
higher-income groups. Ridership from lower-income sectors of the
population doesn't increase as fast (although these riders may ride
more), in part because unemployment is higher among these
groups. Transit is particularly useful for work-trip commuters; so, if
more middle-income and upper-income riders have jobs, it stands
to reason that more new riders would come from these sectors of
the population. And these are the same groups which are the heavy
auto owners and commuters too!
Commuting Speed
• Commuting by rail is slower than commuting by car or
express bus.
• The mistake in this myth is that people advocating it
are comparing apples with oranges. Instead of
comparing commuting times for trips made in the
same corridor, they compare the overall commute time
by car and the overall commute time by transit for the
entire metropolitan area. People do not select their
commute mode in the abstract - they select their mode
based on how well it works for the trip they actually
take.
On average, most of the seats on a
bus or train are empty.
• Usually when anti-transit people say this they are
referring to the whole day. Indeed, buses are
trains may be relatively empty during early
morning or late night hours when they are
providing necessary lifeline service.
• Transit lines are designed to serve the peak
period, and while adjustments are made to lower
service levels at other times such adjustments do
not save as much money as might be expected.
LRT Vs Monorail (Cost) -1
LRT Vs Monorail (Cost) -2
LRT Vs Monorail Cost (3)