[sustran] More on Bus, LRT, and heavy rail

[Eric Bruun]

Brendan

I never lost sight of the focus of this discussion. I have not diverged into
land use or other development issues, as interesting and relevant as these
might be.

While it seems that the Dublin LRT is used as essentially a fancier bus
line, this is not the case for most of the new North American systems. I
again cite Greg Thompson and Tom Matoff, 2003.  "Keeping up with the Jones:
Radial versus Multidestinational Transit in Decentraling Regions" Summer
2003, Journal of the American Planning Association.

Their study looked at 9 regional transit systems, operating with 4 different
principles. It shows that the new systems that use rail and bus in a
coordinated network provide more service for comparable operating budgets,
serve more origin-destination pairs and have higher ridership that bus only
systems and -- here is where your point comes in -- radial-only rail
systems, as well.  They found that Pittsburgh with several light rail lines
and Cleveland with a heavy rail line and a couple of light rail lines did
not perform so well. But these systems run their rail almost like
independent bus lines.

Used cleverly, LRT indeed can be used to get more productivity and coverage
with a limited bus fleet.

One comment about capacity -- there is overlap between LRT and RRT (Rail
Rapid Transit). The passenger throughput can become quite large, comparable
to rapid transit, especially when several routes converge on a tunnel. The
Boston Green Line tunnel sees about 200,000 per day, the San Francisco
tunnel somewhat less. I live in Philadelphia, where it is only 80,000 per
day in the tunnel. But even at this level, running enough buses to carry the
same amount of passengers on the street would require enforcement of some
dedicated bus lanes and very frequent buses, something that is not likely to
happen. Where I live, even though it is a big city, the car is king!

Even though bus lanes might be cheaper in principle, many of us don't want
to wait for enlightened politicians. In the US, they are too busy building
stadiums for multi-millionaires. In the meantime, we will try to grab the
motorway money from a higher level of government for a grade-separated rail
solution. I am sure the same reasoning goes on in cities of all income
levels where the lower-level government won't prioritize public
transportation.

Eric


Eric




----- Original Message -----
From: "Brendan Finn" <etts at indigo.ie>
To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 6:48 PM
Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail


> 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
> >
> >
> >
>