Light Rail Transit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About This Encyclopedia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated May 11, 2006

---

This chapter describes “Light Rail Transit” (LRT) systems.

Description

Light Rail Transit (LRT, also called trams or trolleys) systems provide convenient local Public Transit service on busy urban corridors, connecting major destinations such as central business districts, medical centers, campuses and entertainment centers. LRT vehicles tend to have relatively smooth and comfortable operation, easy boarding, attractive station areas, and easy-to-understand routes and schedules. Many rail systems have quick loading and Transit Priority features (grade separation and traffic signal preemption) to maximize travel speeds and minimize congestion delay. They are often supported with convenient user information (many city maps show rail transit routes and stations) and other Transit Encouragement strategies to increase ridership.

There is some confusion about the definitions of different types of urban rail services. It is not vehicle that defines the transit mode, but the quality of rights-of-way (ROW). The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Light Rail Committee offers these definitions:

· Streetcar: A steel wheel on rail transit mode, operating on-street, sharing the pavement with other vehicles, with little or no priority signalling at intersections.

· Light Rail Transit: A streetcar system that has extensive priority signalling at intersections and at least 30% of it's route operating on ‘reserved rights-of-ways.’ LRT may be grade separated but must retain the ability to operate in mixed traffic. Light rail which operates on grade separated ROWs are more commonly referred to as Light Metro’s.

· Light or Heavy Metro: A transit mode that operates on a fully grade separated (separated from street level) ‘rights-of-ways.’ Unlike generic LRT, many metro’s, including monorail, are proprietary transit systems and cannot share their ROW with other transit modes including other metro’s!

Light Rail Transit both requires and supports Smart Growth land use policies. LRT systems are often implemented in conjunction with Transit Oriented Development (common destinations are located within convenient walking distance of transit stations). Rail Transit stations provide a catalyst for creating compact, mixed, walkable urban centers (often called Transit Villages or Transit Centers). Where this occurs, Light Rail increases Accessibility (land use patterns that minimize distances between common destinations and maximize transport system Diversity) rather than just mobility (the physical movement of people). As a result, well-planned Light Rail Transit systems can provide additional benefits associated with more accessible Land Use.

Rail transit is considered prestigious, and so tends to be relatively effective at attracting discretionary travelers (people who have the option of driving for a given trip), and political support (many communities have passed referenda for special funding for rail transit systems).

How it is Implemented

Light Rail Transit Improvements and Encouragement Programs are usually implemented by transit agencies, often with support from other government agencies and businesses. Major rail transit investments often require special funding arrangements which sometimes require voter approval. Rail transit should be implemented with policies that support Transit Oriented Development. Groenewegen and de Boer (2005) provide guidelines for evaluating the feasibility of rail transit in a particular city.

Travel Impacts

Like any transit service, the travel impacts of Light Rail services depend on various factors including the quality of service, fares and user incentives (such as Commuter Financial Incentives), Marketing, and the degree to which land use policies support transit (Transit Evaluation). Various Transit Encouragement strategies can increase ridership.

Rail tends to be more attract than conventional bus transit to discretionary travelers (people who have the option of driving), including commuters, visitors, and people traveling to major sport and cultural events if they are located along transit lines. In addition, where LRT provides a catalyst for more accessible land use, it tends to increase overall transit transport (rail and bus), increase overall walking transport, and reduce per capita vehicle ownership and use (Litman, 2004).

There is some debate concerning the relative attractiveness of rail compared with Bus Rapid Transit (bus systems that provide high service quality). Some research indicates greater demand for rail than bus transit (NJARP, 2006; Henry and Litman, 2006), but some experts argue that given comparable speeds, comfort features and promotion, bus service can be equally attractive (for discussion see Litman, 2005a).

Table 2 Travel Impact Summary

Travel Impact	Rating	Explanation
Reduces total traffic.	3	Can reduce automobile use.
Reduces peak period traffic.	3	Tends to be attractive for commute trips.
Shifts peak to off-peak periods.	1	Off-peak fare discounts induce some shifts.
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes.	3
Improves access, reduces the need for travel.	2	Can encourage higher-density, clustered land use.
Increased ridesharing.	0
Increased public transit.	3
Increased cycling.	1	Can support cycling.
Increased walking.	2	Supports pedestrian travel.
Increased Telework.	0
Reduced freight traffic.	0

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Benefits And Costs

Rail Transit tends to provide high service quality. This directly benefits users, and by attracting discretionary travelers who would otherwise drive, tends to provide indirect benefits such as reduced traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, traffic crashes, energy consumption, and pollution emissions. Although Light Rail Transit generally serves a relatively small portion of total regional travel, it tends to be concentrated in dense urban areas where vehicle traffic costs are high. As a result, total benefits per trip tend to be large. Air pollution emissions are significantly lower per passenger-mile than automobile travel, conventional transit bus and Bus Rapid Transit (Puchalsky, 2005).

Where Rail Transit is a catalyst for Transit Oriented Development and Smart Growth land use development it provides a variety of indirect benefits, including Increased Property Values near transit stations, improved community Livability, consumer cost savings and Affordability (by reducing per capita vehicle ownership and operating costs), and increased regional Economic Development (Hass-Klau, Crampton and Benjari, 2004). Although these benefits are difficult to quantify, they can be substantial (Land Use Impacts), often offsetting a major portion of public costs (Smith and Gihring, 2003).

According to analysis described in Litman, 2004, residents of cities with high-quality Rail Transit systems pay approximately $100 annually per capita in additional transit subsidies, and save approximately $500 annually per capita in direct consumer transportation (automobile and transit) expenditures, indicating a high return on investment.

Rail Transit systems tend to be expensive to develop and operate. According to American Public Transportation Association data (APTA, various years), Light Rail Transit has higher operating costs per passenger-mile than other forms of transit. However, this reflects the fact that LRT systems are located in dense urban areas where any transportation service is costly to provide, and because many LRT systems are relatively new and still building ridership. When all costs (including roadway, parking, vehicle, and external) are considered, Rail Transit is often more cost effective per passenger-trip than accommodating additional automobile travel or attracting more bus transit users on congested urban corridors. Claims that rail transit projects cost more than alternatives often consider only a portion of total costs (Litman, 2005a; Litman, 2005b; Transit Evaluation).

Bruun (2005) compares LRT and BRT annual operating costs using U.S. data. For a typical agency, both have lower operating costs on a per space-kilometer basis during base periods than regular buses. Both the lower LRT and BRT cost estimate are comparable for adding service during peak periods. Using the higher cost estimate, peak BRT costs 24% more than LRT. For trunk line capacities below about 1,600 spaces per hour the headway versus cost tradeoff favors BRT. Above 2,000 spaces per hour, BRT headways become so short that Traffic Signal Priority may not be effective and Revenue Speed may decrease. The marginal cost of adding off-peak BRT service is substantially less than the average cost of regular buses, LRT less yet. Peak Fleet Size seems to be an important driver of costs.

Table 4 Benefit Summary

Objective	Rating	Comments
Congestion Reduction	3	Reduces automobile use on congested corridors.
Road & Parking Savings	3	Reduces road traffic and parking demand.
Consumer Savings	3	Provides affordable mobility and reduces per capita vehicle ownership and operating costs.
Transport Choice	3	Increases transport choice for non-drivers.
Road Safety	3	Tends to be safer than driving overall.
Environmental Protection	3	Tends to reduce air pollution.
Efficient Land Use	3	Tends to discourage sprawl.
Community Livability	3	Contributes to neighborhood livability.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Equity Impacts

The Equity Analysis Rail Transit is complex because it depends on the type of service provided and the perspective used for (Litman, 2005). LRT services tends to be costly to provide because it is designed to provide a high quality service to attract discretionary riders on congested corridors and so requires high public subsidies per unit of capacity. It tends to benefit higher-income commuters compared with conventional bus transit. As a result, critics sometimes argue that Rail Transit is regressive. However, many light rail systems are heavily used by lower-income residents, and rail transit funding often substitutes for highway rather than bus expenditures. As a result, Light Rail investments are often less regressive than highway improvements on the same corridor, when all Costs are considered (including roadway capacity, parking facilities, external costs imposed on other road users and urban neighborhoods). To the degree that Rail Transit provides a catalyst for more accessible land use, more diverse transport systems, and less stigma associated with transit use, it benefits transportation disadvantaged people, increases Affordability, and provides Basic Mobility.

Table 5 Equity Summary

Criteria	Rating	Comments
Treats everybody equally.	1	Provides benefits that are valued by most groups.
Individuals bear the costs they impose.	0	Requires subsidies, but often less than for driving.
Progressive with respect to income.	3	Provides affordable mobility for lower-income people.
Benefits transportation disadvantaged.	3	Provides mobility for non-drivers.
Improves basic mobility.	3	Provides basic mobility.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Applications

Light Rail Transit is particularly appropriate in medium and large urban areas that want to create more Diverse transport systems and Smart Growth development patterns. Light Rail systems are usually implemented by local and regional governments with federal, state or provincial support. Individual businesses and developers can support LRT politically, by locating near rail stations, and by offering Incentives for employees to use transit.

Table 6 Application Summary

Geographic	Rating	Organization	Rating
Large urban region.	3	Federal government.	3
High-density, urban.	3	State/provincial government.	3
Medium-density, urban/suburban.	2	Regional government.	3
Town.	2	Municipal/local government.	3
Low-density, rural.	0	Business Associations/TMA.	2
Commercial center.	3	Individual business.	1
Residential neighborhood.	2	Developer.	2
Resort/recreation area.	3	Neighborhood association.	2
		Campus	3

Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).

Category

Improved Transport Choice

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

Light Rail Transit supports and are supported by most other TDM strategies, particularly Commute Trip Reduction programs, Transit Oriented Development, Smart Growth, Nonmotorized Transportation Planning, and New Urbanism. Rail Transit is most cost effective when implemented with Transit Encouragement strategies such as Commute Financial Incentives, Parking Pricing and Road Pricing. Rail Transit sometimes competes with other alternative modes, particularly Bus Rapid Transit and Ridesharing.

Stakeholders

Light Rail Transit improvements depend on the support various government agencies. Rail Transit projects often require public support for additional funding, and the support of businesses or local residents to create Transit Oriented Development.

Barriers To Implementation

Major barriers to Light Rail Transit projects include limited funds for transit, unsupportive land use patterns (common destinations too dispersed to be served cost effectively by rail), and policies that favor automobile travel (such as generous parking requirements and subsidies).

Best Practices

Government agencies (such as the Federal Transit Administration) and professional organizations (such as the American Transit Association) provide a variety of resources concerning best practices in transit planning and operations.

Case Studies and Examples

For case studies and examples of many different types of successful transit improvements see the Center for Transportation Excellence (www.cfte.org); Ridlington and Gigi Kellet, 2003; “Light Rail Transit Success Stories” (www.lightrailnow.org), and TRB (2001).

Portland, Oregon (www.tri-met.org)

Portland, Oregon has implemented several successful transit projects including the MAX regional rail system, Portland Streetcar, Intercity Passenger Rail, TDM programs and the OHSU tramway. Portland’s transit agency, Tri-Met, has produced a Community Building Sourcebook (www.trimet.org/inside/publications/sourcebook.htm) which describes many of the projects, plans, programs and organizations that make the Portland region a national model for linking land use and transportation initiatives. They have implemented many support strategies, including, Walking and Cycling Improvements, Transit Encouragement programs, and Transit Oriented Development. The cumulative effects of these improvements has been significant. Figure 1 illustrates how per capita transit ridership increased between 1970 and 2002.

Figure 1 Annual Transit Trips Per Capita in Portland, Oregon Region

Per capita transit ridership approximately tripled in Portland, Oregon due to various transit improvements.

According to the 2004 TriMet Attitude and Awareness Survey, more than three-quarters (77%) Portland’s LRT riders reported they either had a car available (67%) or chose not to have a car because they preferred to take the train (10%), (www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2006q3.htm).

Denver’s New Light Rail Succeeds at Attracting Riders

About 32 percent more riders are boarding Denver, Colorado’s new southwest light-rail line than the transit agency projected would use the new line during its first year. “The trains are so packed by the time they reach the northern stations you have to wait 20 minutes or more to catch the next train,” says one rider. Light rail’s popularity since the line opened July 14, 2000 has forced into service every car the transit agency has, including the four cars reserved for emergencies, maintenance rotations, and breakdowns. “They’re standing on top of each other,” says a 35-year-old rider. “They’re standing in the doorways. They’ll do anything to squeeze onto the train.”

Comparing Transit Service Performance: Sacramento and Columbus

A study by Schumann (2005) compares transit system performance in two similar size cities. The Sacramento Regional Transit District (www.sacrt.com) began building a Light Rail Transit system in 1985, while the Central Ohio Transit Authority (www.cota.com) Columbus failed in its efforts establish a similar system in Columbus, Ohio and so only offers bus transit. During the following 17 years, transit service and ridership increased significantly in Sacramento, but declined in Columbus, while operating costs per passenger-mile increased much more in Columbus than in Sacramento, as indicated in the table below.

Table 1 Columbus and Sacramento Transit Performance (Schumann, 2005)

	1985			2002			Change
	CO	SA	SA/CO	CO	SA	SA/CO	CO	SA
County Population (000)	914	903	99%	1,084	1,302	120%	19%	44%
Unlinked trips (000)	25,889	16,051	62%	16,246	26,610	164%	-37%	66%
Trips per capita	28.3	17.8	63%	15.0	20.4	136%	-47%	15%
Passenger miles (000)	121,408	93,473