1. Light Rail – silverbullet for future urbanmobility or waste of money SebastianEmig MA Light, Regional and Suburban Rail Manager International Association of Public Transport (UITP)

2. Light Rail Transit Introduction Light Rail – THE panacea? Conclusion

3. Traffic development in Europe

4. Changing life-styles

6. Light Rail – THE panacea?

8. Higher operating speeds (~ 25 km/h)

9. Fully or partly segregated alignment – high reliability

10. Attractive design: stations + vehicles

12. Urban integration

13. Quality and comfort

14. Environmental impact

15. Political engineering

17. Capacity 2/2 DLR going from 2,000 pphpd in 1987 to 20,000 pphpd by 2011

19. More drivers needed (local wage conditions!)

20. Relatively poor energy efficiency per pax transported

21. Amount of land required, especially at termini

25. Measurable increase in land value

26. Triggers inward investment and job creation

29. Depending on citizens expectations and purchasing power

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

31. Bus systems have poorer ride quality

32. Rail systems can have higher reliability

35. Zero emission in sensitive areas with LRT

36. Less dependance on fossil fuels of LRT

37. Global warming

38. Oil price inflation

41. “Ribbon-cutting” – political cycles

42. (Sometimes) easier planning

43. BRT often as introduction of new vehicles/stop infrastructure more than whole ‘system’BRT as 1st step towards LRT

45. Operation costs

46. Vehicles

48. Strong variations in LRV price

49. More due to technical variety

50. Not off-the-shelf products

51. Quite small orders compared to busses

52. 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

57. Attribute of PT modes

59. No “one fits all” decision-making

60. Choice highly dependant on local conditions:

61. Available funding (CAPEX and OPEX)

62. Availability and value of land

63. Legal framework etc.

64. Transportation demand (now & future)

65. Local conditions & constraints

67. Evaluate main corridor(s) requirements (demand)

68. Only then select the most appropriate mode

69. BRT can provide some new options in PT offer

70. Good improvement of bus services

71. Overlapping areas with tram

72. Conversion to LRT at later stage

73. Capacity increase easier with LRT

75. Both: opportunity to change image and boost PTPollution, Congestion, Urban sprawl, Quality of life Solution : High quality public transport

76. It is not LRT vs. BRT

77. It is PT vs. car

78. Light Rail – silverbullet for future urbanmobility or waste of money Thankyou for your attention sebastian.emig@uitp.org