sebastian emig - silver bullet for future urban mobilitity or waste of money
Post on 17-May-2015
620 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related