[sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail

[Brendan Finn]

First, I would like to remind that this thread started in relation to LRT
rather than rail systems generally, and more specifically to new investment.

My guess is that most transport experts would agree that heavy rail networks
and bus are quite different propositions. They usually serve different roles
in the transportation supply, rail usually has a metropolitan area and
regional dimension, and of course rail usually has valuable legacy
infrastructure (as Kisan reminds us very well). Quite often they will serve
different markets as well, such that heavy rail and bus do not easily
substitute for each other. Todd reminds us that rail can be very useful in
developing the territory, and Jain reminds us that in corridors with very
high flows, rail is the supreme people mover.

By contrast, LRT/tram systems do not have a clear-cut distinction from
service-line bus. Most tram systems have a stopping pattern similar to
buses, their comparative speed is typically due to having an exclusive
right-of-way denied to buses, and they do not have an appreciable advantage
over bus in people-moving capability. Cities who are fortunate to have a
legacy of a tram network are right to retain them, since they form part of
the urban culture and have a loyal customer-base.

When it comes to new investment, one would expect urban and transport
planners to take a professional approach - to develop and evaluate the best
LRT/tram option(s) and the best bus-based/BRT option, giving each the
features it needs for best performance. Unfortunately, this is not the usual
practice. Through the late 80's and the 90's in Europe, there has been a
very strident pro-LRT lobby. Having argued (as we all do) that public
transport is the solution to the city's transport woes, the standard
strategy is to rubbish bus as a viable option.

We are all familiar with the tactics - buses can't carry the same number of
people, they have high operating costs, they get in each other's way at high
volume, choice customers (car users) won't use the bus, buses have failed us
in the past, you can't give over the road space to buses, buses are dirty,
there are not-nice people on buses at night etc. These negatives are loaded
into the system design, patronage forecasts, evaluation frame, and of course
the political and community campaign efforts. In parallel, the most
optimistic forecasts are used for the LRT/tram carryings and financials.
What the UK National Audit Office did was to call it as it is - unrealistic
forecasts that are never reached, leaving financial burdens for system
backers and the public purse.

Using the Dublin example as a specific case, all of the negative tactics
have been used, plus a few that I prefer not to put in general circulation.
Bus was dead as an option from the start, reducing the choice to LRT or
nothing. While the various agencies can spin their story, the facts are that
it comes in 4-5 years later than originally promised, at double the original
planned cost, the two lines don't meet (about 1 km. at closest point), and
the optimistic income covers only the direct operating contract. For 10% of
the final cost, the Quality Bus Network could have been in place a decade
ago - at least that is now back on track.

I accept that there are cases where new LRT makes transportation sense, but
I haven't seen very many cases where they couldn't have been done as well
and much cheaper by buses given equal levels of priority.

With best wishes,


Brendan Finn.
_______________________________________________________________________
Contact details are : e-mail : etts at indigo.ie   tel : +353.87.2530286

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Alexander Litman" <litman at vtpi.org>
To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>; "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable
transport'" <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:52 PM
Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus


>
> Let me address a few points that have been raised in this discussion. I
> agree that it is a mistake to approach this as simply a debate over
whether
> rail is better than bus transit or vise versa. Both have advantages and
> disadvantages, and each is most appropriate in certain situations. These
> issues are discussed in the "Rail Versus Bus Transit" section of
> "Evaluating Rail Transit Benefits and Costs"
(http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf).
>
> My report does not argue that rail transit is always better than bus.
> Rather, it argues that in a variety of ways conventional evaluation
> practices tend to undervalue transit in general and rail transit in
> particular. I've added a new section in my paper which discusses these
> (bullet points on page 6), and I'm in the process of updating "Guide to
> Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs"
> (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf) to more clearly explain these
> distortions. Let me mention two distortions that I think are particularly
> relevant to this discussion.
>
> First, some arguments raised in this discussion seem to assume that a
> choice must be made between spending money on bus or rail. This may be
> partly true, but as often as not the choice is between rail and highway
> investments. This seems to be true in both developed countries and in the
> developing country cities that I'm familiar with (Kingston, Jamaica;
> Santiago, Chile; and Mexico City). Although from some perspectives rail
may
> be less beneficial than bus, it is far more beneficial overall than
> expenditures on urban highways which stimulate more urban sprawl and
> automobile dependency.
>
> One interesting finding from my study is that in cities with large rail
> transit systems, per capita transit subsidies are far higher, and total
> transit service cost effectiveness tends to increase, including bus
transit
> services. This seems to result because of the higher per-capita transit
> ridership, less dispersed land use patterns, and because, with more
middle-
> and upper-class riders, there is more political support for the various
> management strategies to favor transit.
>
> Second, much of the benefit of rail transit tends to result from the
> changes it leverages in land use and motor vehicle transportation
patterns.
> Rail transit can provide a catalyst for more accessible, multi-modal
> neighborhood development, and reduced per capita vehicle ownership and
> mileage. A number of studies, including my own, indicate that these
> indirect benefits can be far larger than the direct benefits that result
> from shifts of individual trips from automobile to transit. For example,
> comparing U.S. cities, those with major rail transit systems have more
than
> 50% greater transit ridership, more than 50% less per capita traffic
> congestion delays, 50% lower per capita traffic fatalities, and about 15%
> lower per capita transportation expenditures, even accounting for
> differences in city size, due to these leveage effects. It's possible that
> busways may also have this effect, if implemented in conjunction with
other
> smart growth strategies, but conventional bus services do not.
>
> Critics of rail transit tend to ignore these land use impacts and use
> biased evaluation methods. For example, they often evaluate traffic
> congestion reduction benefits based on roadway level-of-service ratings or
> travel time index, which evaluate congestion from the perspective of a
> peak-period driver and ignore the congestion reduction benefits that occur
> when people shift to alternative modes. Similarly, evaluation that focuses
> on short-term impacts (i.e., high discount rate) will tend to favor bus
and
> highway improvements compared with evaluation that takes a longer-term
> perspective.
>
> Put differently, rail advocates face two specific obstacles. Many rail
> transit benefits only occur if rail is implemented with supportive
> transport and land use policies, and these benefits are difficult to
> quantify. However, when properly implemented and evaluated, I think that
> rail transit is probably justified in many medium and large cities where
> conventional planning would consider it an unjustified luxury.
>
>
> Best wishes,
> -Todd Litman
>
>
>
> At 01:51 PM 5/3/2004 +0700, Jonathan Richmond wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org
> >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf
> >Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond
> >Sent: Monday, 3 May 2004 11:21 AM
> >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
> >Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus
> >
> >On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Eric and Jonathan,
> > >
> > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No
> > > doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit
> > > philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a
rail
> >vs. bus discussion?
> >
> >Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense.
> >
> >
> > > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion?
> >
> >Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor
> >results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments
that
> >squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income.
> >
> >  There comes a time when
> > > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the
> > > logical choice.
> >
> >Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example.
> >
> >  You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong
> > > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway
company).
> > >
> >
> >I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete
> >sense. So does the metro of Mexico City.
> >
> >
> > > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices
> > > are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus
> > > lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at
> > > these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can
> > > argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor
> > > requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses
> > > (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would
> > > create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can
> >provide this service.
> >
> >
> >Absolutely agreed.
> >
> >  In most of the circumstances if
> > > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway
> > > travel in terms of journey time.
> > >
> > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses
> > > most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone
> > > movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways
> > > and buses can still supplement and provide local service.
> > >
> >
> >As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that
there
> >is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite
> >wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may
not
> >serve needs.
> >
> >Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be
> >made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally
a
> >very costly approach.
> >
> > > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok
> > > briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not
> > > because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And
> > > these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to
> > > reduce the parallel running bus services.
> >
> >No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference
> >between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only
> >limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is,
> >indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor
> >timekeeping, but that is another matter).
> >
> >  Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different
> > > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon
> > > buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The
> > > alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in
> > > exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily
> >thereafter.
> >
> >The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole
range
> >of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them.
> >
> >  Institutional
> > > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with
> > > a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics
> > > (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months
> > > time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!).
> >
> >In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the
> >complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the
> >costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is
rarely
> >done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan
> >
> >-----
> >
> >Jonathan E. D. Richmond                               02 524-5510
(office)
> >Visiting Fellow                               Intl.: 662 524-5510
> >Transportation Engineering program
> >School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B               02 524-8257 (home)
> >Asian Institute of Technology                 Intl.: 662 524-8257
> >PO Box 4
> >Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120                        02 524-5509 (fax)
> >Thailand                                      Intl:  662 524-5509
> >
> >e-mail: richmond at ait.ac.th               Secretary:  Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa
> >         richmond at alum.mit.edu                         02 524-6051
> >                                               Intl:  662 524-6051
> >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Todd Litman, Director
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute
> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> 1250 Rudlin Street
> Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
> Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
> Email: litman at vtpi.org
> Website: http://www.vtpi.org
>
>
>