Download
1 / 18
190 likes | 379 Views
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.
E N D
Lecture 9BRT 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 rapid-transit-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 high-quality 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.
