Light Rail – silverbullet for future urbanmobility or waste of money<br />SebastianEmig MA<br />Light, Regional and Suburb...
Light Rail Transit<br />Introduction<br />Light Rail – THE panacea?<br />Conclusion<br />
Traffic development in Europe<br />
Changing life-styles<br />
Light Rail – THE panacea?<br />
What is BRT and LRT? 2 similar surface transport modes<br />Quality features<br /><ul><li>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</li></ul>Priority at traffic lights<br />Real Time information<br />Smartcard <br /><ul><li>P+R</li></li></ul...
Urban integration
Quality and comfort
Environmental impact
Political engineering
Economic evaluation</li></li></ul><li>Capacity 1/2<br /><ul><li>Capacity is only one attribute</li></ul>Many cities opt fo...
Capacity 2/2<br />DLR going from 2,000 pphpd  in 1987 to  20,000 pphpd by 2011 <br />
In fact...<br />Full BRT headway can be quite high...<br />90 buses/hour/dir. >> 9000-12000 pax/h/dir<br />...but, there c...
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”</li></li></ul><li>Urban integration 1/3<br /><ul><li>BRT can require more ...
Alignment clearances</li></ul>Multi-parameter: geometry, curvature, speed etc.<br /><ul><li>Potentially very large parking...
Variable value of space as a commodity – is BRT an enhancement to urban realm?</li></li></ul><li>Urban integration 2/3<br ...
Measurable increase in land value
Triggers inward investment and job creation
Confidence in long-term in views of developers and land-owners</li></ul>Better coexistence of LRT with soft modes<br /><ul...
Quality and comfort 1/2<br /><ul><li>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
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Sebastian Emig - silver bullet for future urban mobilitity or waste of money

817 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
817
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sebastian Emig - silver bullet for future urban mobilitity or waste of money

  1. 1. Light Rail – silverbullet for future urbanmobility or waste of money<br />SebastianEmig MA<br />Light, Regional and Suburban Rail Manager<br />International Association of Public Transport (UITP)<br />
  2. 2. Light Rail Transit<br />Introduction<br />Light Rail – THE panacea?<br />Conclusion<br />
  3. 3. Traffic development in Europe<br />
  4. 4. Changing life-styles<br />
  5. 5.
  6. 6. Light Rail – THE panacea?<br />
  7. 7. What is BRT and LRT? 2 similar surface transport modes<br />Quality features<br /><ul><li>High frequency (~down to 90 sec.)
  8. 8. Higher operating speeds (~ 25 km/h)
  9. 9. Fully or partly segregated alignment – high reliability
  10. 10. Attractive design: stations + vehicles
  11. 11. Advanced ITS</li></ul>Priority at traffic lights<br />Real Time information<br />Smartcard <br /><ul><li>P+R</li></li></ul><li>What are differences then?<br />“BRT is more flexible and more affordable than LRT”<br /><ul><li>Too simple to be true...</li></ul>We need to look into:<br /><ul><li>Capacity
  12. 12. Urban integration
  13. 13. Quality and comfort
  14. 14. Environmental impact
  15. 15. Political engineering
  16. 16. Economic evaluation</li></li></ul><li>Capacity 1/2<br /><ul><li>Capacity is only one attribute</li></ul>Many cities opt for LRT when BRT could perhaps accomodate demand<br />BRT: 3,000-8,000 pphpd<br />LRT: 3,000-11,000 pphpd<br /><ul><li>Easier capacity increase with LRT</li></ul>Multiple unit operation <br />Automatic train control <br /><ul><li>Issue of system reserve capacity is crucial</li></ul>Capability to accomodate future demand in growing urban areas<br />Unwise to be at capacity limit from early days<br />
  17. 17. Capacity 2/2<br />DLR going from 2,000 pphpd in 1987 to 20,000 pphpd by 2011 <br />
  18. 18. In fact...<br />Full BRT headway can be quite high...<br />90 buses/hour/dir. >> 9000-12000 pax/h/dir<br />...but, there can be negative consequences:<br /><ul><li>Reduced intersection performance</li></ul>Min. headway reasonably related to traffic light cycle times<br /><ul><li>Need for strict enforcement at intersection
  19. 19. More drivers needed (local wage conditions!)
  20. 20. Relatively poor energy efficiency per pax transported
  21. 21. Amount of land required, especially at termini
  22. 22. No capacity reserve left / little “flexibility”</li></li></ul><li>Urban integration 1/3<br /><ul><li>BRT can require more space than LRT
  23. 23. Alignment clearances</li></ul>Multi-parameter: geometry, curvature, speed etc.<br /><ul><li>Potentially very large parking/layover facilities at termini
  24. 24. Variable value of space as a commodity – is BRT an enhancement to urban realm?</li></li></ul><li>Urban integration 2/3<br />LRT more conducive to transit oriented development and substantial upgrading of urban realm<br /><ul><li>Not just better image of the city
  25. 25. Measurable increase in land value
  26. 26. Triggers inward investment and job creation
  27. 27. Confidence in long-term in views of developers and land-owners</li></ul>Better coexistence of LRT with soft modes<br /><ul><li>Pedestrians and cyclists</li></ul>But!<br /><ul><li>Economic deprivation cannot be “cured” by any transport mode alone</li></li></ul><li>Urban integration 3/3<br /> 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. <br />
  28. 28. Quality and comfort 1/2<br /><ul><li>High quality is needed to attract non captive users and allow a modal shift towards PT
  29. 29. Depending on citizens expectations and purchasing power
  30. 30. International evidence that rail systems attract more users (10-15%) especially from car
  31. 31. Bus systems have poorer ride quality
  32. 32. Rail systems can have higher reliability
  33. 33. Other “image” factors</li></li></ul><li>Quality and comfort 2/2<br />Attributes of route and guideway<br />32% / 19%<br />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.<br />
  34. 34. Environmental impact 1/2<br /><ul><li>Local pollution
  35. 35. Zero emission in sensitive areas with LRT
  36. 36. Less dependance on fossil fuels of LRT
  37. 37. Global warming
  38. 38. Oil price inflation
  39. 39. Lower noise levels</li></li></ul><li>Environmental impact 2/2<br /> 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.<br />= 4,000 cars/year<br />
  40. 40. Political engineering<br />(Short–term) advantage for BRT<br /><ul><li>Reap political benefits – “Quick Wins”
  41. 41. “Ribbon-cutting” – political cycles
  42. 42. (Sometimes) easier planning
  43. 43. BRT often as introduction of new vehicles/stop infrastructure more than whole ‘system’</li></ul>BRT as 1st step towards LRT<br />
  44. 44. Economical evaluation 1/4<br /><ul><li>Investment costs
  45. 45. Operation costs
  46. 46. Vehicles
  47. 47. Infrastructure</li></li></ul><li>Economical evaluation 2/4<br /><ul><li>LRV ~20% project implementation costs
  48. 48. Strong variations in LRV price
  49. 49. More due to technical variety
  50. 50. Not off-the-shelf products
  51. 51. Quite small orders compared to busses
  52. 52. Difference for capital cost on yearly basis per m²</li></ul>~900-1,200 €/m²/y >> LRV (life cycle 30y)<br />~650 €/m²/y >> bus (life cycle 10y)<br />Source : H. Hondius<br />
  53. 53. Economical evaluation 3/4<br /><ul><li>Large difference according to circumstances :
  54. 54. Compulsory/optional investments</li></ul>Civil eng.; structures; depots; utilities; track forms<br /><ul><li>Urban design budget (image)
  55. 55. Operation strategies</li></ul>partial/full priority and segregation<br /><ul><li>Possibility to use existing facilities </li></ul>Former railway alignment, depot …<br /><ul><li>BRT with full quality attributes can come close to LRT cost range </li></ul> High quality has always a price!<br />
  56. 56. Economical evaluation 4/4<br /><ul><li>In Western countries, expenses per seat*km for LRT can be half as much as for Bus </li></ul>Efficient LRT lines cover their costs more easily – even make a profit!!<br /><ul><li>Bus operation costs highly determined by driver salaries</li></ul>In Europe, staff is ~75% of opex for bus against ~45% for LRT (local wage conditions!)<br /><ul><li>Reduced number of drivers with longer trains</li></ul> To carry 10,000 pphpd, you need<br />~90 bus drivers<br />~30 LRV drivers<br /><ul><li>Demand plays a major role</li></ul>The higher demand, the greater the advantages for LRT<br />
  57. 57. Attribute of PT modes<br />
  58. 58. Conclusions 1/3<br /><ul><li>No magic formula for all circumstances!
  59. 59. No “one fits all” decision-making
  60. 60. Choice highly dependant on local conditions:
  61. 61. Available funding (CAPEX and OPEX)
  62. 62. Availability and value of land
  63. 63. Legal framework etc.
  64. 64. Transportation demand (now & future)
  65. 65. Local conditions & constraints
  66. 66. Long-term political vision</li></li></ul><li>Conclusions 2/3<br /><ul><li>Define a PT network for the area, with hierarchy of transport (masterplan)
  67. 67. Evaluate main corridor(s) requirements (demand)
  68. 68. Only then select the most appropriate mode
  69. 69. BRT can provide some new options in PT offer
  70. 70. Good improvement of bus services
  71. 71. Overlapping areas with tram
  72. 72. Conversion to LRT at later stage
  73. 73. Capacity increase easier with LRT
  74. 74. Regeneration impact of LRT much higher</li></li></ul><li>Conclusions 3/3<br /><ul><li>Each has its own merits and specific applications
  75. 75. Both: opportunity to change image and boost PT</li></ul>Pollution, Congestion, Urban sprawl, Quality of life<br />Solution : High quality public transport<br />
  76. 76. It is not LRT vs. BRT<br />
  77. 77. It is PT vs. car<br />
  78. 78. Light Rail – silverbullet for future urbanmobility or waste of money<br />Thankyou for your attention<br />sebastian.emig@uitp.org<br />

×