Light Rail Transit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
May 11, 2006
This chapter describes “Light
Rail Transit” (LRT) systems.
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
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
Improved Transport Choice
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
Figure 1 Annual
Transit Trips Per Capita in

Per capita transit ridership approximately tripled in
According to the 2004 TriMet
Attitude and Awareness Survey, more than three-quarters (77%)
About 32 percent more riders
are boarding
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)
Table 1
|
|
1985 |
2002 |
Change |
|||||
|
|
CO |
SA |
SA/CO |
CO |
SA |
SA/CO |
CO |
SA |
|
|
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 |
||||||