Transport Action BC

James Strickland, Transport Action B.C. member April 1995, revised and HTMLified November 1995

Transport Action decided to place an advertisement for light rail because there is a lot of misinformation about it which is propagated by politicians, consultants, and the media. We hope to set the record straight. In the following paragraphs we will present facts to justify all statements in the advertisement. As well, we will make note of statements which consultants have made in reports for local politicians which do not correspond with the facts.

Line capacity: 20 000 people per hour per direction

Long light rail vehicles exist which can carry 200 people or more:

Duewag G58D-MNZ (Freiburg): 205
ABB 6NGT (Chemnitz): 212
ABB Eurotram (Strasbourg): 213
AEG (MAN) GT8N (Bremen, Jena): 226
SGP ULF197-6 (Vienna): 231
Duewag GT8 (Sheffield): 233
GEC Alsthom (Nantes): 252
Duewag 6MGT (Dresden, Mannheim): 269

This assumes the standard 4 standees per square metre. These LRVs are somewhat longer than the average existing North American LRV. The Nantes LRV, for example, is 39 metres (128 feet) long.

Many light rail systems in Germany and Switzerland operate with 30 second headways (time between LRV's). Some are fully signalled, including automatic train stop equipment. Numerous other systems with full signalling (Grenoble, Hong Kong, Manila, Calgary, Portland, San Francisco) have peak headways of two minutes or less. Most of the above systems have numerous grade crossings.

There are also systems which use four car trains (Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego) in regular service.

Despite this, the latest reports for BC Transit ([7], [8], [15]) state that LRV's carry 150 people and can't run more frequently than every three minutes. The Broadway report [15] also states that trains cannot be longer than 3 units because of the length of the block on Broadway between Main and Kingsway, but provides no justification for a stop having to be located there rather than being east of Kingsway or west of Main. The consultants conclude that LRT systems can carry a maximum of 9 000 people per hour per direction (pphpd): 150 people per vehicle * 3 vehicles per train * 20 trains per hour.

Making more reasonable assumptions, we can calculate a maximum capacity of 22 800 pphpd: 190 * 3 * 40. To be conservative, we stated the capacity as being 20 000 pphpd.

Our calculation is supported by real life examples. During the 1988 Olympics the Calgary C-Train moved 240 000 people in one day (see [12]).

The overall line speed typically falls in the 30 - 45 km/h range, the main difference in speed being attributable to the different spacing between stops and the number of grade crossings requiring delays. The fastest light rail line in North America is the Saint Louis MetroLink, which averages 45.9 km/h. SkyTrain averages 44.3 km/h.

The major advantage in speed of LRV's over standard buses is due to the speed of boarding. LRV's have a large number of doors with wide openings, allowing simultaneous boarding, just as is done on SkyTrain or any metro. Payment of fares is typically done before boarding by buying a ticket from an automatic machine, although some systems have ticket machines on board the LRV.

Boarding is faster if the LRV has a low floor, as do most which have been recently built. People can simply step on board without having to climb any steps since the LRV floor height is the same as the curb height at the stop. Such a system allows people pushing a baby carriage and people in a wheelchair or scooter to gain access to rapid transit without being singled out for special service (wheelchair lifts, for example) and without slowing the service down. SkyTrain provides good service in this respect, but with an LRV at street level there is no need for elevators.

Cost: $15 million/km average (SkyTrain $45 million/km)

Consider the overall cost per km for the following LRT systems, in millions of 1992 Canadian dollars (see [10]): San Diego 7.4, Sacramento 7.6, Portland 12.2, Nantes 14.9, San Jose 15.1, Calgary 22.5, Los Angeles 23.9. These costs include the cost of planning, construction, land acquisition, vehicles, and maintenance facilities.

These are concrete examples that LRT does not have to cost $57 million/km as is claimed in [7], or even the $30.38 million/km that is claimed in [15]. Why are the consultant's figures so high?

The main reason would seem to be that the consultants presume the need for tunnelling, something which is not even really desirable. This is partly an issue of philosophy, but there is plenty of evidence (i.e. existing working systems) that constructing at grade results in a very small time penalty since traffic lights can give priority to LRV's. The cheap alternative is often simply not considered by the consultants - [7] discards an at grade route on Cambie because there is too much car traffic on Cambie! The consultants apparently value the space given to automobiles, despite the possibility of dramatically increasing the people carrying capacity of the street by replacing one lane in each direction with a light rail line. For an interesting comparison of people carried versus number of vehicles for transit and for cars, see page 3 of [5].

The official cost of SkyTrain can be found in [3].

[Road] Capacity: 2 600 people per hour per lane (1.43 people/vehicle)

Consider the "two second rule" - a car should not be less than two seconds behind the car ahead of it. Assuming a lane is filled with cars following this rule precisely (something which in practice is impossible - they would in fact be more widely spaced on average), we find one lane has a capacity of 1 800 vehicles per hour (30 per minute * 60 minutes per hour). Current average occupancy is estimated to be 1.43 people per vehicle (see [18]), thus resulting in an approximate road capacity of 2 600 people per hour per lane.

Is this estimation reasonable? Consider the following example. The Lion's Gate bridge is at capacity or at least near capacity from 7 to 9 on weekday mornings. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways [2] state that 9 200 people travel southbound during that time. That corresponds to 4 600 people per hour, or 2 300 people per hour per lane.

One might say that the average occupancy figure can easily increase. That is a matter for debate. Carpools could improve road capacity, however they are only really practical for home to work trips. It seems clear that the nature of the car will not change - cars are most often used for convenience, which often means there is only one occupant.

Note that a road with a capacity of 20 000 pphpd (maximum capacity of a light rail system) would have to be at least 14 lanes wide. Even assuming a 50\% increase in average occupancy per vehicle, a road must be approximately 5 times wider to carry the same number of people! Is it any wonder large road systems are more expensive in the long run?

[Road] Speed: 100 km/h max, typically 20 - 45 km/h including stops

There is no debating that the maximum legal speed is 100 km/h. The average speed, however, varies tremendously depending on the trip and the time of day. Note that having to stop for a traffic light decreases average speed considerably. To justify the average speed quoted we can cite examples of relevant urban trips, such as downtown to airport or Metrotown to downtown. Both are a distance of 15 km, take roughly 25 minutes (36 km/h) off peak, 35 minutes (or more!) during peak (26 km/h).

It is very difficult to average 45 km/h on urban roads. Even large controlled access, grade separated highways can have low average speeds during peak periods. For example, average speed during peak hours on I-5 in Seattle is 26 mph (42 km/h), according to the Puget Sound Regional Council.

[Road] Cost: from $15 million/km to $118 million/km (Cassiar)

The low figure for urban highway cost is calculated from a report published in 1990 ([9]) which recommended (among other things) the widening of highway 1 from First Avenue in Vancouver to Kensington Avenue in Burnaby. The estimated cost in 1989 dollars was $80 million; the distance is 5.5 km, making an average cost of $15 million/km. Note that this is only for the widening of an existing road. Furthermore, the province already owns the right of way!

Another example of the expense involved in urban highways is the recently completed Cassiar connector project, which cost $117 856 972 (as of 31 March 1993 - see [1]). The Cassiar connector is roughly 1 km long, making for an average cost of approximately $118 million/km.

Note that even highways being constructed in non urban areas cost on the order of $4 million/km. For example, the Vancouver Island Highway is currently estimated to cost $1 400 million (see [16]}), and is 320 km long (see [1]). As an interesting aside, the recently announced $150 million estimated cost overrun on the Island highway is more than the entire cost of the 65 km long commuter rail service from Vancouver to Mission.

Note: road cost estimates do not include the cost of vehicles or maintenance facilities; LRT cost estimates do.

There are more than 340 cities in the world with light rail systems

For a listing of cities with light rail systems see [14] or [11].

.. many with populations less than that of the city of Vancouver

The following is a non-exhaustive list of cities with light rail systems and populations less than 500 000: Basel, Charleroi, Ghent, Graz, Grenoble, Heidelberg, Innsbruck, Karlsruhe, Lidingo, Ludwigshafen, Nantes, Norrkoping, Oostende, St Etienne, Ulm, Utrecht.

Of course, a light rail line constructed in the Lower Mainland would likely serve Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam or Richmond. Thus, the comparison should really be with metropolitan areas which have populations less than a million or so. This would vastly increase the size of the list.

Light rail systems are cost effective [at 2000 pphpd]

See the study quoted in [14].

Trolley buses on Broadway are already carrying close to 50 000 people per day (see [4]}). No peak hour usage figures are given, but we can calculate that the peak usage is on the order of 2 000 pphpd. Thus, the existing transit demand on Broadway, despite the slowness of service due to slow loading on overcrowded buses, is sufficient to justify a light rail line.

[LRV's] last 30 years or more

One need only examine any one of the hundreds of light rail operations in the world to verify this claim. There are many examples of LRV's which are significantly older than 30 years which continue in service. For a North American example, consider the length of time PCC streetcars remained in service - Toronto retired many of theirs after 40 years of service, although some remain in service today. Newark still operates their PCCs, which were built in the early 1950's.

[LRV's] can be purchased from many manufacturers

Not counting firms which have been bought out by larger ones (e.g. BN bought by Bombardier), the following companies manufacture light rail vehicles: ABB, Bombardier, Breda, Cobrasma, Concarril, Fiat, Firema, GEC Alsthom, Ganz-Hunslet, Hitachi, Kinki Sharyo, Linke-Hofmann-Busch, MAN, Mafersa, Materfer, Mitsubishi, Nippon Sharyo, Riga, SEMAF, SGP Verkehrstechnik, Schindler, Siemens Duewag, Socimi, Tatra, Tokyu, Vevey. (source: [11])

In contrast, SkyTrain is a proprietary system originally developed by the Urban Transportation Development Corporation of Ontario, now owned by Bombardier. Only Bombardier makes vehicles which can work on the SkyTrain system.

[LRV's] cost about the same as a SkyTrain car which carries 75

The proprietary nature and lack of volume are the reason why SkyTrain cars are so expensive ($2.4 million per car on the last order of 20 cars). There are two systems in the world compatible with SkyTrain - the Scarborough RT line in Ontario (which, it was recently announced, will not be extended) and the Downtown People Mover in Detroit, which is a small one track circle. There is the possibility of a project in Kuala Lumpur. It seems unlikely that there will ever be a strong demand for more SkyTrain type cars.

The original LRV's for Portland, built at the same time as the original SkyTrain order, cost $800 000 US (approximately $1 million Canadian) each. Recent LRV prices in the US have ranged from $1.9 million US (Denver) to as high as $3 million US per LRV.

The author wishes to clearly point out, once again, that all LRT cost figures given include the cost of the vehicles.

Light rail systems can use existing track

Many light rail systems were built by taking over unused railway track. Some systems share right of way with an existing railway. In fact, in Karlsruhe, LRV's operate on the German Federal Railway main line, along with many other passenger trains in regular service.

..and do not require grade separation

Most light rail systems operate almost entirely at grade. This is much less costly than constructing tunnels or elevated sections. Of course, there is nothing precluding a light rail line from being grade separated should the demand for such service exist (e.g. the Manila LRT is elevated).

The SkyTrain system, being automated and using a "third rail" current collection system, must be grade separated.

Local politicians are being told LRT is expensive [and other unjustified assertions]

As quoted above, [7] uses a figure of $57 million/km for LRT. This is an outrageously expensive proposal. The $30.38 million/km cost quoted in [15] is especially difficult to understand, since it purports to be a bare bones system. Why should such a system cost double the average cost of recent systems constructed in North America? There is even some infrastructure already in place which it might be possible to use (power transformers, poles and span wires for the existing trolley overhead).

The consultants also claim that SkyTrain would attract significantly more riders than LRT and would result in more commercial development. No justification is given for either claim.

Note also that many reports suggesting improved bus service do not include the cost of road widening in the cost for the bus service. Given the earlier example of a highway widening costing as much as an LRT system, does it make sense to conclude that such a bus service is cheaper?

When comparing vehicle costs directly, one should consider the life span and capacity of the vehicle. LRV's typically last on the order of 3 times as long as buses do. A study showed that service on 42nd street in New York could be adequately served by 16 LRV's in place of 68 buses (see [14], page 35).

livable neighbourhoods

There are, of course, different visions of what constitutes a livable neighbourhood. Most people will agree, however, that it is unpleasant and often dangerous to live beside a busy road. Building our environment around the car results in more car travel, which results in wider and busier roads, in an ever increasing spiral.

It is the opinion of many, espoused in recent local reports such as the city of Vancouver's CityPlan document, that we should strive for pedestrian friendly environments. One need only look at light rail systems in Europe to see how well they integrate with pedestrian oriented development.

saving money

Light rail systems are cheaper to operate than bus systems carrying the same number of people mainly because the driver can now carry many more people.

Comparing light rail to cars, consider that the conclusion of [18] states that automobile transport in the Lower Mainland was subsidised by $2 700 million in 1991, whereas public transport was subsidised by $360 million. These figures should cause people to stop and think - do we want to continue spending vast sums on cars, or spend less overall by switching some car use to transit? One could construct a vast network of light rail lines and fund a vastly improved bus service with the amount that cars were subsidised by in one year!

saving energy

Carrying more people in fewer vehicles saves energy (as well as space!). The average number of people carried on a bus in Vancouver is 20, according to [18]. It should be clear that one bus carrying 20 people is vastly more energy efficient than 14 cars carrying 20 people.

The efficiency improves even more with larger vehicles, of course, assuming that the demand exists for them. LRV's also have other advantages over liquid fuelled buses. Electric motors are roughly 90\% efficient; diesel engines, for example, are 15\% to 35\% efficient (consider all the heat the engine produces - see p45 of [6] or p212 of [17]). Electric motors can be used to generate electricity - this is called regenerative braking - and feed the power produced back into the overhead system for use by another vehicle. Regenerative braking can reduce energy use by one third, and it also eliminates the need to wear down brake pads. Electric trolley buses share the above advantages with LRV's, but LRV's have one added bonus: the rolling friction of steel wheel on steel rail is much lower than that of rubber tire on concrete or asphalt.

In comparing total energy use one must also consider the energy required to transport the power to the vehicle. In the case of electrically propelled vehicles there is the energy lost in transmission lines and electrical substations. In the case of liquid fuelled vehicles there is the energy lost in exploration, drilling, refining, transporting, storing, and distributing the liquid fuel. The author does not have clear figures comparing the two, but it seems unlikely that transporting liquid fuels half way around the earth is terribly efficient.

reducing noise

Modern LRV's are much quieter than the streetcars of 50 years ago. The main cause of noise with streetcars was wheel squeal around corners; modern LRV's have reduced this problem considerably through such improvements as flexible axle bogies, resilient wheels, and automatic lubrication.

Relative to vehicles propelled by internal combustion engines, LRV's are very quiet when accelerating.

reducing pollution

LRV's reduce pollution simply due to the fact that they use less energy to move the same number of people compared to buses or cars. They also have the advantage of not producing any air pollution locally. Cars and non-electric buses produce noxious fumes and chemicals which produce smog; LRV's don't.

Electric propulsion also has the advantage that power may be generated at a larger site. Large power stations are generally less polluting than the equivalent number of smaller power generating units would be. Note that most of the power generated in British Columbia is from hydro-electric generating stations.

reducing injuries and deaths

According to [18], unaccounted road accident costs in the Lower Mainland amounted to $397 million in 1991. One need only listen to traffic reports on the radio to realise that vehicle collisions occur very frequently. Light rail accidents are very rare, by comparison.

Should we be spending money to mend people after car collisions, or should we spend less money to avoid some of the collisions in the first place?