Modal Choice for Mass Rapid Transit Session 1: Public Transport Beyond BRT - Light Rail Transit or Metro Niklas Sieber (PhD) and Olaf Scholz-Knobloch Transport Training Initiative TTi International Urban Mobility Forum, 26-27 27 April 2011, Florianopolis, Brazil
Main questions discussed 1. Public Transport in Developing Countries 2. Which Mass Rapid Transit modes are available? 3. Criteria for a rational Modal Choice 4. Which mode is appropriate for your city? 2
Public Transport in Developing Countries
Exploding motor vehicle fleet Increasing problems related to environment, safety and urban development 4
Advantages of Public Transport 50 people using different modes Münster, Germany 5
Modal Share of Public Transport Daily Trips per Capita Source: UIC 2003 Public Transport has a modal share of 5-40% => Modal Shift is needed to achieve sustainability 6
Modal share in Germany and selected Asian cities Walking Bicycle Public Transport Cars Source: Kaltheier 2002 7
Public Transport for the poor Absolute and relative expenses by income level, Sao Paulo 1997 Source: UITP 2003 Poor people spend a larger share of their income on transport Even small changes in fares and service levels can reduce the mobility of the urban poor. 8
Poor Transport Rich Transport 9
Poor organisation of Transport Services Bamako, Mali Cairo, Egypt 10
The Comfort Balance Low comfort => low cost transport for the poor High comfort attracts more passengers => Modal Shift Poverty Environment 11
Modes for Mass Rapid Transit
Mass Transit Modes Commuter Rail Metro Light Rail Transit (LRT) Tramways Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 13
Commuter Rail Systems Germany Heavy rail system, sometimes called suburban rail Serve lower-density areas, typically by connecting suburbs to the city centre High average speeds Often only serving one station in each village and town Operation at a lower frequency than Metros Scheduled services (i.e. trains run at specific times rather than at specific intervals) More seating and less standing room Often sharing track or right-of of-way with intercity or freight trains. Germany 14
Metro Systems Manila, Philippines Singapore As well: subway or heavy rail transit Serves high density urban areas High frequencies High carrying capacities Grade-separated Also commonly applied to elevated heavy rail systems. Distinction between heavy and light Metro 15
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Toronto, Canada Cairo, Egypt Metropolitan electric railway system Variable frequencies, capacities and speed Operates in mixed traffic as well as grade separated At ground level, aerial structures, in subways, or in streets Board and discharge passengers at track or car floor level. 16
LRT in Karlsruhe, Germany 17
Capacities of LRT Linea 1 in Monterey, Mexico Planned: 40 trains/hour Planned: 30 trains/hour 4 vehicles per train Planned: 30 trains/hour 2010: 14 trains/hour 3 vehicles per train 2000: 12 trains/hour 1998: 11 trains/hour 1992: 10 trains/hour 2 vehicles per train 1991: 6 trains/hour 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Capacity pphd 18
Tramways Germany Serve urban high density areas Often operate without an exclusive right-of of-way, in mixed traffic. Low capacities High frequencies 19
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Curitiba Curitiba Busway corridors on segregated lanes Either at-grade or grade separated Modernised and clean bus technology. Rapid boarding and alighting Efficient fare collection Comfortable shelters and stations Today, there are more than 80 BRT systems around the world. Lagos, Nigeria 20
Decision criteria for a rational Modal Choice
Criteria for Modal Choice Costs: Infrastructure and operating cost Performance : Peak capacities = pphd passengers per hour and direction Quality and comfort Availability of urban space Many others, such as: cost/benefit ratios, environmental effects, flexibility, planning and construction time 22
Comparison of investment costs Metro rail: London (Jubilee Line ext.) Metro rail: Hong Kong Monorail: Las Vegas Metro rail: Caracas (Line 4) 90.3 101.6 Elevated rail: Bangkok (BTS) 73.9 Elevated rail: Kuala Lumpur (PUTRA) Metro rail: Madrid (1999 extension) Metro rail: Mexico (Line B) LRT: Los Angeles (Gold Line) LRT: Portland 42.8 40.9 37.8 35.2 50 LRT: Bordeaux BRT: Pittsburgh, USA LRT: Lyon LRT: San Diego LRT: Tunis 20.5 19.8 18.9 17.2 13.3 BRT: Bogotá BRT: Los Angeles, USA BRT: Houston, USA BRT: Bogotá (Phase I) BRT: Miami, USA BRT: Sao Paulo 9.2 7.2 6.2 5.3 4.6 3 Metro LRT BRT BRT: Curitiba 2.5 BRT: Las Vegas (Max) 1.7 BRT: Quito (Eco-Via Line) 1.2 BRT: Porto Alegre 1 BRT: Taipei 0.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 million US$/km Data: Wright (2004): Mass Transit, Gtz Training Course, United States General Accounting Office (2001): GAO- 01-984 23
Operating costs In Developing Countries, where labour costs are relatively low, => staff costs only play a smaller role than in Industrialised Countries. In Industrialised Countries staff costs are the mayor cost driver => often higher operational costs for BRT. Operating costs per passenger Cdn$/passenger 10 8 6 4 2 0 Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose Calgary LRT BRT Calgary Transit Transit Planning 2002 24
Comparison of capacities Comfort threshold Developed Countries Tramway BRT (single lane) LRT (light) Comfort threshold Developing Countries BRT (double lane) LRT (heavy) Metro (light) Metro (heavy) Commuter Rail 80,000 120,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 pphd Source: Olaf Scholz-Knobloch 25
BRT requires urban space Two Lane BRT: Capacity: <15,000 pphd Width: 34 m Source: Wright (2004) Four Lane BRT: Capacity: 35,000 pphd Width: 40-50m 26
Congestion in Quito, Ecuador Concentration of activities in the Hypercenter BRT capacities limited to 15,000 pphd No space available for additional BRT systems Strong population growth => prediction of decreasing modal share for public transport => Quito decided to build a Metro to integrate with the BRT system 27
Cost for vertical alignment Million US$ (2000) per km 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 All-in cost for Metro systems Min Max Compared to at-grade systems elevated systems are 2-2.52.5 times more expensive, underground systems are 4-64 6 times more expensive. 0 At-grade Ele v ate d Unde rground Source: Halcrow Fox 2000 28
Metro Bus Tunnel Pioneer Square, Seattle Year: 1990 Length: 2.1 km No of Stations: 4 Investment Cost: 217 m US$/km 29
Which mode is appropriate for your city?
Modal Choice using German comfort standards 200,000,000 / km Commuter Rail Heavy Metro.. 80,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 LRT Tram Light Metro 10,000,000 Single Lane Double Lane BRT pphpd 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Source: Olaf Scholz-Knobloch 31
Heuristic for Modal Choice Urban Space Available Scarce Comfort Low High Low High < 15,000 pphd Single Lane BRT Single Lane BRT Single Lane BRT Single Lane BRT 15-25,000 pphd Double Lane BRT Double Lane BRT LRT LRT 25-35,000 pphd Double Lane BRT LRT LRT LRT > 35,000 pphd Light Metro Heavy Metro Light Metro Heavy Metro 32
Conclusions Important decision criterion: Balance between low cost transport for the poor and comfortable transport to induce a Modal Shift. BRT systems have lower investment costs, shorter planning time and higher flexibility. BRT systems are constrained by the availability of urban space. LRT are flexible systems that may serve conurbations of medium sized towns. LRT may operate in mixed traffic as well as on grade separated tracks. LRT has capacities comparable to double-lane lane BRT, but may offer higher comfort standards. Heavy Metros and Urban Commuter Rail Systems have large capacities but as well as high investment costs. Imperative for decision making is an alternatives analysis, comparing mass transit options for reaching a desired service standard. 33
My advice for your city Thank your for your attention! Picture: Paul Starkey Obrigado para vossa atenção! Schoolbus in Bangalore, India 34