Appendix G: Rapid Transit Technology Backgrounder
This appendix provides additional details regarding Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit technologies, with examples from other systems, including: Operating rights-of-way; Ridership attraction; Capital and operating costs; Land use and development; Service frequency; Technology conversion; and, Electric vehicles. Right-of-Way One key feature that differentiates rapid transit from conventional transit service is the right-of-way that the vehicles operate in. There are varying degrees of separation from general traffic that rapid transit vehicles can operate under: Exclusive right-of-way, where the complete separation of transit vehicles from automobiles, pedestrians and cyclists takes place. The aim is to minimize conflicts at intersections and along runningway segments, in order to maximize speed. This alignment allows for modes to travel at the highest speeds as they are not forced to operate at roadway speed limits. Examples of this include the majority of Ottawa s Transitway system, Calgary s C-Train LRT and most subway systems; Semi-exclusive right-of-way, where transit vehicles typically operate in dedicated lanes along existing roadways and where the number of atgrade intersections is limited. By reducing the number of at-grade intersections, vehicles can operate consistently at higher speeds (typically dictated by the speed limit of the road). These vehicles still cross major roadways at signalized intersections that utilize transit signal priority in order to reduce the delay the vehicle experiences. Examples of these types of alignments include York Region s VIVA rapidways, Toronto s St. Clair Streetcar, and many European LRT systems; and, Non-exclusive right-of-way, where transit vehicles operate in mixed traffic, similar to how the typical local bus operates today. However, transit signal priority can be implemented to improve operating speeds and limit delays G.2
at signalized intersections. Queue jump lanes, which allow buses exclusive access to the front of an intersection queue, can also be a strategy to improve operating speed without the need for an independent right-of-way. These types of alignments are common in downtown areas where foregoing speed due to space restrictions within a high activity centre is deemed acceptable. These alignments can experience significant delays that might otherwise be avoided in an exclusive or semi-exclusive system. Examples of this include Brampton s ZUM, and Toronto s King Street Streetcar service. Semi-exclusive right-of-way Non-exclusive right-of-way Most systems use a combination of these types of alignments depending on spatial constraints, traffic conditions and the selected technology. As the degree of grade separation increases, the vehicles are able to operate at a faster speed and with greater reliability. While all technologies can operate within all these alignments, recent projects have seen LRT operate exclusive and semiexclusive, streetcar in semi-exclusive and non-exclusive and BRT within all. While performance increases with the degree of exclusivity so does capital costs. To provide this degree of segregation, especially in a constrained urban environment, requires expensive investments such as bridges, tunnels, road widening or dedicated median lanes. G.3
Attracting Ridership The implementation of LRT and BRT has led to increased mobility and ridership in cities across the continent. Better speed, reliability and comfort all play a role in attracting new riders to use transit. Experience in other systems has shown that LRT systems attract more riders for a combination of reasons, including rider comfort and the permanence of the alignment. However, some riders can be discouraged as trips that could previously be completed by one bus, albeit in more time, may require an additional transfer to be made by LRT depending on how local routes are modified. Therefore, the design of transfer locations and transfer amenities is extremely important. BRT is also effective at attracting riders, however stronger branding of the service and infrastructure typically needs to occur to help differentiate the system from perceptions that residents have about conventional transit. The one significant advantage, aside from the significant cost savings compared to LRT, is that there is the option to operate routes that operate locally then use the BRT infrastructure to travel across town, providing a one-seat ride. G.4
Typical LRT and BRT passenger amenities include: Climate controlled waiting areas Wait time technology Way finding signage Accessible platforms G.5
Capital Costs There is a wide range of costs between the projects, with significant variation arising from the choice of alignment, the availability of right-of-way, the type of running structure/guideway, the scope of ancillary infrastructure (e.g. bus loops, park-and-ride lots) and the size of the rolling stock/fleet used in developing the system. In the United States, constructing a BRT line can vary from $10 million per kilometre to $40 million per km (USD) while the range for LRT is $40 million per kilometre to $80+ million per km (USD). In Canada, the LRT projects in Calgary and Waterloo that are or will be operating at-grade within roadway medians and along rail corridors, are costing towards the lower end of this range, while two projects in Edmonton which both include tunnel sections and multiple grade-separations- are at the higher end. In terms of Canadian BRT projects, York Region s vivanext and the Mississauga Transitway East are both costing between $20 million and $40 million per kilometre. Exhibit G.1 provides a summary of three rapid transit projects in Canada that are planned or currently under construction. Image of York Region s VIVA BRT infrastructure improvements. G.6
Image of Missisauga s Miway BRT improvements. Exhibit G.1 System Cost Comparison SYSTEM LENGTH COST COST/KM Calgary (LRT) South Line Extension 3.5 km $ 180 Million $ 51.4 Million Waterloo (LRT) 19 km $ 818 Million $ 43 Million Edmonton (LRT) Metro Line 3.3 km $ 665 Million $ 200 Million York Region Rapidways (BRT) 34.2 km $ 1.4 Billion $ 41 Million Mississauga Transitway (BRT) 18 km $ 259 Million $ 14 Million To analyse the cost variability from system to system, the capital costs can be categorized into three parts: The Runningway Depending on the degree of grade separation, the exclusivity of the right-of-way, and the type of guideway, the cost of the runningway infrastructure can have a wide range of variability. For example, a system with completely exclusive right-of-way will carry a much higher cost burden than a lite system that operates in mixed traffic within an existing road right-of-way. The Rolling Stock As system size and service frequency increase, the number of vehicles in operation also increase to maintain service. The choice of vehicle can also be the source of considerable cost variability from one G.7
system to the next. High cost vehicles may be more energy efficient, provide a more comfortable riding experience, and be more user friendly, while having higher passenger capacities compared to lower end vehicles. Operating and Maintenance Facility - With the introduction of new vehicles to a transit system, comes the need for a new operating and maintenance facility that is built to service them. In the case of LRT, an operating and maintenance facility needs to be connected to the rail network. Considering that every additional track kilometre adds extensive cost to a system, the strategic placement of the facility needs to be carefully considered while considering land use implications and distance from the route. Operating Costs Operating cost can vary significantly from system to system depending on fleet size, service frequency, and vehicle technologies. The breakdown of operating cost variability from system to system can be broken down into three categories: Energy Costs - As network size and service frequency increase, so to do vehicle operating hours. The types of vehicles that are running also affect the variable energy costs of a system. LRT vehicles get all their power from electric induction and have lower energy costs per vehicle km than buses that run on hybrid diesel/electric motors. Labour Labour costs vary depending on the amount of vehicle hours and driver wages. Operating and Maintenance Maintenance varies between LRT and BRT systems. LRT systems have greater costs associated with track and vehicle maintenance. As passenger demand increases, and service frequency and vehicle-hours increase, the lower variable costs of LRT become more apparent and LRT can be more justified. Under conditions of lower passenger demand, and lower vehicle hours, BRT is favourable. For comparison purposes, operating costs by revenue vehicle-hour were retrieved from the US National Transit Database for LRT and bus (conventional and BRT combined) vehicles and is shown in Exhibit G.2. Comparable Canadian data was not available at the time of writing. G.8
Exhibit G.2 LRT and Bus Operating Costs per One Revenue Vehicle-Hour Experience from these systems indicates that the cost to operate one LRT vehicle or one BRT vehicle for one hour varies significantly, but that BRT is generally less expensive. Because of this, cost-effective use of light rail requires high passenger demand to become viable. While LRT can be a more attractive option for choice riders, ensuring that the technology matches the demand will help to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the system. Land Use and Development Both BRT and LRT have the ability to shape land along the nodes and corridors that they service, with the impact on development dependent on a combination of the specific site, the land use policies in place, and the vehicle technology. By directing residential and employment intensification along a rapid transit corridor, a municipality will grow the ridership base for the corridor and achieve other development objectives, such as encouraging mixed-use, walkable communities. While LRT is perceived as being a more permanent infrastructure investment, which provides extra security for developers to invest, a full BRT system with major investment into the running way and station design can also be viewed as permanent infrastructure. G.9
Example of intensification along a LRT corridor. The City of Vancouver has been a leader in using rapid transit as a catalyst for development by encouraging development near rapid transit stations, especially large trip attractors, likes grocery stores, fitness facilities and pharmacies. This has resulted in a decline in the average trip length for retail-based trips as the day-to-day needs of residents can be met within their local community. Depending on the station location, park-and-ride lots can reduce the development potential of a station-area as the land closest to the station is instead allocated to parking lots. This prevents new development from taking advantage of being in close proximity to the rapid transit station and causes the surrounding area to become an unattractive area to pedestrians. However, parkand-ride lots have a role to play and should be used at locations with minimal development potential (e.g. under hydro corridors, areas with constrained lot sizes, or brownfield lots that are not economic to remediate in the short-term). Service Frequency LRT vehicles have larger capacities compared to buses, requiring fewer vehicles to accommodate passenger demand. This in turn impacts the headway (i.e. time between vehicle) required to meet the peak demands along a rapid transit corridor. A headway that is too long will reduce the ability to attract new riders while a headway that is very short can be challenging to reliably maintain. G.10
Technology Conversions BRT Conversion & Phasing A number of cities have successfully built BRT systems that upgrade the infrastructure over time. These systems typically begin with a BRT-lite route along a corridor that typically operates in mixed-traffic with some priority measures (e.g. transit-signal priority, queue jumps). As ridership and congestion grow, and new funds become available, the infrastructure along these routes can be upgraded to meet the local needs. York Region Transit s VIVA Rapid Transit system has used this approach since September 2005, when its first route launched. Since then, over 13 km of rapidways have been or are under construction. When the current phase is built out in 2021, the bus rapidways will stretch over 44 km across the Region, however large portions on the peripherals will continue to operate in mixed-traffic. The vivanext plan eventually envisions upgrading busier segments of the rapidways to LRT as demand and funding warrant. BRT to LRT Conversion Conversion from BRT to LRT is the long-term plan of many rapid transit systems, including VIVA and Zum. A number of new BRT systems, including York Region, have incorporated design elements with this in mind in order to be strategic with their funding. There are numerous advantages to deploying BRT services as a precursor to LRT including: Important BRT infrastructure elements, such as transit signal priority and passenger information displays can represent sunk infrastructure costs that benefit a LRT project; Improvements to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to access BRT stations will support future LRT stations; and, Stations can be designed to be retrofitted or move (depending on BRT and LRT alignment), representing a reusable asset for an LRT system. As of 2015, only two North American examples exist of BRT to LRT upgrades. The first was completed in 2007, and saw Seattle s Downtown Transit Tunnel which was converted to support a mix of BRT and LRT after 15 years as a busonly tunnel. The tunnel initially incorporated a number of geometric elements G.11
within its design in order to accommodate the LRT catenary and stations required minimal retrofits to accommodate level-boarding onto LRT. A notable Canadian example is the Ottawa Confederation Line where 10km of the Central Transitway is currently being converted from BRT to LRT. The line, which is scheduled to open in 2018, will replace original sections dating back to 1983. The LRT line will take advantage of original design provisions such as vertical clearance provision, geometric elements and structural loadings on existing structures that were planned to accommodate light rail vehicles. Ottawa Confederation Line LRT Conversion Rendering. While only two BRT to LRT conversions have taken place, both Ottawa and Seattle demonstrated that a BRT system is an effective first step to building the necessary ridership foundation for LRT. While both conversions have or are causing significant service disruptions, they will ultimately provide a long-term benefit for their communities. It is important to note that the conversion from BRT to LRT should only be considered for systems that have been in place for a significant time period (at least 25 years), and where an upgrade is warranted after an additional detailed evaluation process. Continuous service disruptions and high costs to simply upgrade the existing rapid transit can be greeted by significant political resistance and public criticism. G.12
Electric Bus Market Scan The following table summarizes a scan of current electric bus options available on the market, including vehicle features, powertrain, dimensions, seating, warranty and costs. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each vehicle is provided at the bottom of the table. G.13
G.14