Edmonton Light Rail Transit in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

[[File:Jerusalem New Light Rail on Jaffa st. - July 11th, 2011 - Israel.jpg|thumb|right|Jerusalem Light Rail in Jaffa Road, Jerusalem.

[[File:Mockingbird Station 3.jpg|thumb|alt=An escalator descends from the street to an island platform station with a white and yellow train present along a landscaped track.|right|DART Light Rail (Dallas, Texas) Mockingbird Station]]

Manchester Metrolink Tram in Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester, UK

METRORail in Houston, Texas

Sydney's Metro Light Rail

New Jersey Transit Newark Light Rail

Like most light rail systems, the Tranvia de Tenerife (Tenerife, Spain) includes some operation at street level, but separated from other traffic

Light rail or light rail transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public transportation that generally has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems, but higher capacity and higher speed than traditional street-running tram systems. The term is typically used to refer to rail systems with rapid transit-style features that usually use electric rail cars^[1] operating mostly in private rights-of-way separated from other traffic but sometimes, if necessary, mixed with other traffic in city streets. If this is the case, then under the law of many countries such systems are legally tramways, although the vehicles which run on them are sometimes designated "supertrams". Modern light rail technology is flexible and adaptable, and whether any given system is considered a true rapid transit system or not depends on its characteristics.^[2][3][4]

Definition of light rail[link]

The term light rail was devised in 1972 by the U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) to describe new streetcar transformations that were taking place in Europe and the United States. In Germany the term Stadtbahn (to be distinguished from S-Bahn, which stands for Stadtschnellbahn) was used to describe the concept, and many in the UMTA (now called the Federal Transit Administration) wanted to adopt the direct translation, which is city rail (the Norwegian term, bybane, means the same). However, the UMTA finally adopted the term light rail instead.^[5] Light in this context is used in the sense of "intended for light loads and fast movement", rather than referring to physical weight. The investment in infrastructure is also usually lighter than would be found for a heavy rail system.

Transportation Research Board (Transportation Systems Center) defined "light rail" in 1977 as: “a mode of urban transportation utilizing predominantly reserved but not necessarily grade-separated rights-of-way. Electrically propelled rail vehicles operate singly or in trains. LRT provides a wide range of passenger capabilities and performance characteristics at moderate costs.”

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in its Glossary of Transit Terminology defines light rail as: "An electric railway with a 'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars."^[6] However, some diesel powered transit calls itself light rail, such as the O-Train in Ottawa, Canada and River Line in New Jersey, United States, which use diesel multiple unit cars.

Light rail is similar to the British English term light railway, long used to distinguish railway operations carried out under a less rigorous set of regulation using lighter equipment at lower speeds from mainline railways. Light rail is a generic international English phrase for these types of rail systems, which means more or less the same thing throughout the Anglosphere.

The use of the generic term light rail avoids some serious incompatibilities in British and American English. The word tram, for instance, is generally used in the UK and many former British colonies to refer to what is known in North America as a streetcar, but in North America tram can instead refer to an aerial tramway^[7], or, in the case of the Disney amusement parks, even a land train^[8]. (The usual British term for an aerial tramway is cable car, which in the U.S. usually refers to a ground-level car pulled along by subterranean cables.) The word trolley is often used as a synonym for streetcar in the United States, but is usually taken to mean a cart, particularly a shopping cart, in the UK and elsewhere.^[9] Many North American transportation planners reserve streetcar for traditional vehicles that operate exclusively in mixed traffic on city streets, while they use light rail to refer to more modern vehicles operating mostly in exclusive rights of way, since they may operate both side-by-side targeted at different passenger groups.^[10].

The difference between British English and American English terminology arose in the late nineteenth century when Americans adopted the term "street railway", rather than "tramway", with the vehicles being streetcars rather than trams. Some have suggested that the Americans' preference for the term "street railway" at that time was influenced by German emigrants to the United States^[11] (who were more numerous than British immigrants in the industrialized Northeast), as it is the same as the German term for the mode, Straßenbahn (meaning "street railway"). A further difference arose because, while Britain abandoned all of its trams except Blackpool after World War II, seven major North American cities (Toronto, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Newark, and New Orleans) continued to operate large streetcar systems.^[12] When these cities upgraded to new technology, they called it light rail to differentiate it from their existing streetcars since some continued to operate both the old and new systems. Since the 1980s, Portland, Oregon has built all three types of system: a high capacity light rail system in dedicated lanes and rights-of-way, a low capacity streetcar system integrated with street traffic, and an aerial tram system.

The opposite phrase heavy rail, used for higher capacity, higher speed systems also avoids some incompatibilities in terminology between British and American English, as for instance in comparing the London Underground to the New York Subway. Conventional rail technologies including high-speed, freight, commuter/regional, and metro/subway/elevated urban transit systems are considered to be "heavy rail". People movers and personal rapid transit are even "lighter," at least in terms of capacity. Monorail is a separate technology that has been more successful in specialized services than in a commuter transit role.

Categories of light rail[link]

The most difficult distinction to draw is that between light rail and streetcar or tram systems. There is a significant amount of overlap between the technologies, many of the same vehicles can be used for either, and it is common to classify streetcars/trams as a subtype of light rail rather than as a distinct type of transportation. The two general versions are:

1. The traditional type, where the tracks and trains run along the streets and share space with road traffic. Stops tend to be very frequent, but little effort is made to set up special stations. Because space is shared, the tracks are usually visually unobtrusive.
2. A more modern variation, where the trains tend to run along their own right-of-way and are often separated from road traffic. Stops are generally less frequent, and the vehicles are often boarded from a platform. Tracks are highly visible, and in some cases significant effort is expended to keep traffic away through the use of special signaling, level crossings with gate arms or even a complete separation with non-level crossings. At the highest degree of separation, it can be difficult to draw the line between light rail and metros, as in the case of Wuppertal's Schwebebahn hanging rail system or London's Docklands Light Railway, which would likely not be considered "light" were it not for the contrast between it and the London Underground; many^[who?] consider these not to be "light rail" lines but light metros. However, in Europe, the term light rail is increasingly being used to describe any rapid transit system with a fairly lower frequency or shorter trains compared to heavier mass rapid systems such as the London Underground or the Mass Rapid Transit in Singapore. For instance, the Putra LRT and Star LRT in Kuala Lumpur are often referred to as "light rail", despite being fully segregated mostly-elevated railways. In North America, such systems are not considered to be light rail.

Many light rail systems—even fairly old ones—have a combination of the two, with both on-road and off-road sections. In some countries (esp. in Europe), only the latter is described as light rail. In those places, trams running on mixed right-of-way are not regarded as light rail, but considered distinctly as streetcars or trams. However, the requirement for saying that a rail line is "separated" can be quite low—sometimes just with concrete "buttons" to discourage automobile drivers from getting onto the tracks.

There is a significant difference in cost between these different classes of light rail transit. The traditional style is often less expensive by a factor of two or more. Despite the increased cost, the more modern variation (which can be considered as "heavier" than old streetcar systems, even though it is called "light rail") is the dominant form of urban rail development in the United States.

Some systems, such as the AirTrain JFK in New York City and DLR in London and Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia have dispensed with the need for an operator. The Vancouver SkyTrain was an early adopter of driverless vehicles, while the Toronto Scarborough rapid transit operates the same trains as Vancouver, but uses drivers. In most discussions and comparisons, these specialized systems are not considered to be light rail.

History[link]

Streetcar built by Preston Car Company in Ontario^[13]

Many original tram and streetcar systems in the United Kingdom, United States, and elsewhere, were decommissioned in the 1950s and onward as the popularity of the automobile increased. Britain abandoned its last tram system, except for Blackpool, by 1962.^[14] Although some traditional trolley or tram systems still exist to this day, the term "light rail" has come to mean a different type of rail system. Modern light rail technology has primarily German origins, since an attempt by Boeing Vertol to introduce a new American light rail vehicle was a technical failure. After World War II, the Germans retained their streetcar networks and evolved them into model light rail systems (Stadtbahnen). Except for Hamburg, all large and most medium-sized German cities maintain light rail networks.^[15]

The basic concepts of light rail were put forward by H. Dean Quinby in 1962 in an article in Traffic Quarterly called "Major Urban Corridor Facilities: A New Concept". Quinby distinguished this new concept in rail transportation from historic streetcar/tram systems as:

• Having the capacity to carry more passengers
• Appearing like a train, with more than one car connected together
• Having more doors to facilitate full utilization of the space
• Faster and quieter in operation

The term light rail transit (LRT) was introduced in North America in 1972 to describe this new concept of rail transportation.^[16]

The first of the new light rail systems in North America began operation in 1978 when the Canadian city of Edmonton, Alberta adopted the German Siemens-Duewag U2 system, followed three years later by Calgary, Alberta and San Diego, California. The concept proved popular, and although Canada has few cities big enough for light rail, there are now at least 30 light rail systems in the United States.

Los Angeles's mass transit expansion has been driven in large part by light rail

Britain began replacing its run-down local railways with light rail in the 1980s, starting with the Tyne and Wear Metro and followed by the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) in London. The historic term light railway was used because it dated from the British Light Railways Act 1896, although the technology used in the DLR system was at the high end of what Americans considered to be light rail. The trend to light rail in the United Kingdom was firmly established with the success of the Manchester Metrolink system in 1992.

Historically, the rail gauge has had considerable variations, with narrow gauge common in many early systems. However, most light rail systems are now standard gauge.^[15] Older standard gauge vehicles could not negotiate sharp turns as easily as narrow gauge ones, but modern light rail systems achieve tighter turning radii by using articulated cars. An important advantage of standard gauge is that standard railway maintenance equipment can be used on it, rather than custom-built machinery. Using standard gauge also allows light rail vehicles to be moved around conveniently using the same tracks as freight railways. Another factor favoring standard gauge is that accessibility laws are making low-floor trams mandatory, and there is generally insufficient space for wheelchairs to move between the wheels in a narrow gauge layout.

Comparison to other rail transit modes[link]

With its mix of right-of-way types and train control technologies, LRT offers the widest range of latitude of any rail system in the design, engineering, and operating practices. The challenge in designing light rail systems is to realize the potential of LRT to provide fast, comfortable service while avoiding the tendency to overdesign that results in excessive capital costs beyond what is necessary to meet the public's needs.^[17]

Rapid rail transit[link]

Light rail vehicles (LRVs) are distinguished from rapid rail transit (RRT) vehicles by their capability for operation in mixed traffic, generally resulting in a narrower car body and articulation in order to operate in a street traffic environment. With their large size, large turning radius, and often an electrified third rail, RRT vehicles cannot operate in the street. Since LRT systems can operate using existing streets, they can often avoid the cost of expensive grade-separated subway and elevated segments that would be required with RRT.

Streetcars or trams[link]

Conversely, LRVs generally outperform traditional streetcars in terms of capacity and top-end speed, and almost all modern LRVs are capable of multiple-unit operation. Particularly on exclusive rights-of-way, LRVs can provide much higher speeds and passenger volumes than a traditional streetcar^{[citation needed]}. Thus a single-unit streetcar capable of only 70 kilometres per hour (43 mph) operating on a shared right of way is not generally considered “light rail”^{[citation needed]}. The latest generation of LRVs is considerably larger and faster, typically of length of 29 metres (95 ft) with maximum speed around 105 kilometres per hour (65 mph).^[18]

Heritage streetcar[link]

A variation many cities consider is to use historic or replica cars on their streetcar systems instead of modern LRVs. A heritage streetcar may not have the capacity and speed of an LRV, but it will add to the ambiance and historic character of its location.

Typical rolling stock[link]

The BART railcar in the following chart is not generally considered to be a "light rail" vehicle (it is actually a heavy rail vehicle), and is only included for comparison purposes.

Light metro[link]

A derivative of LRT is light rail rapid transit (LRRT), also referred to as Light Metro. Such railways are characterized by exclusive rights of way, advanced train control systems, short headway capability, and floor level boarding. These systems approach the passenger capacity of full metro systems, but can be cheaper to construct by using the ability of LRVs to turn tighter curves and climb steeper grades than standard RRT vehicles.

Interurbans[link]

The term interurban (German Überland(strassen)bahn) mainly refers to rail-cars that run through the streets like ordinary streetcars (trams), but also between cities and/or towns, often through rural environments. In the period 1900-1930, interurbans were very common in the US, especially in the Midwest. Some of them, like the Red Devils, the J.G.Brill Bullets, and the Electroliners, were the high-speed railcars of their time, with an in-service speed of up to about 145 km/h (90 mph).

Train operation[link]

An important factor crucial to LRT is the train operator. Unlike rail rapid transit, which can travel unattended under control of automatic train operation (ATO), safe, high-quality LRT operation relies on a human operator as a key element. The reason that the operator is so important is because the train tracks often share the streets with automobiles, other vehicles, and pedestrians . If trains were fully automated on roads, nobody would be there to stop the train if a car pulled in front of it. Light rail trains are actually very sturdily built for passenger safety, and to reduce damage from impacts with cars.

Floor height[link]

The latest generation of LRVs has the advantage of partial or fully low-floor design, with the floor of the vehicles only 300 to 360 mm (11.8 to 14.2 in) above top of rail, a capability not found in either rapid rail transit vehicles or streetcars. This allows them to load passengers, including ones in wheelchairs, directly from low-rise platforms that are not much more than raised sidewalks. This satisfies requirements to provide access to disabled passengers without using expensive and delay-inducing wheelchair lifts, while at the same time making boarding faster and easier for other passengers as well.

Power sources[link]

Overhead lines supply electricity to the vast majority of light rail systems. This avoids the danger of passengers stepping on an electrified third rail. The Docklands Light Railway uses an inverted third rail for its electrical power which allows the electrified rail to be covered and the power drawn from the underside. Trams in Bordeaux, France use a special third-rail configuration where the power is only switched on beneath the trams, making it safe on city streets. Several systems in Europe, as well as a few recently-opened systems in North America use diesel-powered trains.

Pros and cons of light rail[link]

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2012)

Light rail, like other rapid transit systems, has advantages and disadvantages that have as much to do with the implementation and the region as the system itself.

• Traffic Congestion
• Speed & Safety
• Environmental Issues
• Cost Issues
• Noise

Traffic Congestion[link]

Pros[link]

Light rail lines reduce traffic congestion. As populations increase, transportation supply will not keep up with traffic demand. A study conducted by the University of Denver in 2012 found that light rail "reduced traffic on some highways for a short time."^[19] Another 2012 study found advantages for cities with extensive rail transit over cities with only bus transit systems.^[20] Light rail trains have greater capacity than buses.^[21]

Cons[link]

There is no evidence that light rail lines have any significant effect on traffic congestion. Light rail increases traffic congestion when the implementation is at-grade and traffic signal preemption (traffic light priorities) are set in favor of the trains. A University of Virginia study indicates "that the average additional delays from light rail transit crossings increase with increasing light rail crossing frequencies and increasing traffic volumes up to the roadway’s capacity."^[22]

Traffic congestion studies factoring the opportunity costs of light rail emphasize that the occupied space should be efficiently utilized, such as by the greatest number of travelers. A 2005 report by the Foundation for Economic Education explains the opportunity costs:

"For light rail to reduce traffic congestion, the number of persons it diverts from driving must exceed the drawbacks of in-street alignment. When light-rail tracks are built in the street, they occupy space that could have been used by motor vehicles. The loss of two lanes of roadway for motor-vehicle travel (three where stations are located) squeezes the remaining traffic into a narrower facility. In addition, light-rail trains are typically granted the authority to preempt traffic signals. This further impedes the flow of motor vehicles."

"The prospect of carrying up to 500 persons at once in a three-car light-rail train is the transit bureaucrats’ plan for reducing automobile trips. Of course, not all 500 light-rail passengers on a given train are diverted from driving an automobile. Some will be diverted bus riders. Others will be taking newly generated trips. So the gain in reduced automobile trips is not as large as the total passenger ridership. Nevertheless, adding light rail is bound to reduce the number of trips made in privately owned automobiles."^[23]

No transit line in the United States, except New York City, carries as many people as one freeway lane.^[24]

Speed & Safety[link]

Pros[link]

Light rail is fast and safe.^[25]

Cons[link]

When light rail is separated from pedestrian and vehicular traffic, it can be fast and safe. Due to shared right-of-way implementation, light rail is generally slower (16.8 miles per hour) than bus rapid transit (32.2 miles per hour).^[26] Higher speed travel can lead to higher fatalities.^[27][28]

The lengthy stopping distance^[29] and no maneuverability of light rail trains makes high speed accidents unavoidable^[30] when the train is in shared rights-of-way with other vehicles and pedestrian traffic.^[31][32]

Environmental Issues[link]

Pros[link]

The environmental argument for light rail is that it is clean at the tail pipe. Light rail is powered by electricity. The train has no carbon emissions and no tail pipe.

Cons[link]

The power plants that generate the electricity for light rail trains and stations generate emissions.^[33]

The materials and creation of light rail infrastructure^[34] (track lines and stations) also generates high carbon emissions, though the cement industry and other parts of the construction process.^[35] A study by the University of California, Berkeley shows some train travel about equal to the carbon emissions of large aircraft. ^[36] Light rail construction generally includes the removal of trees, increasing its environmental impact.^[37][38]

Cost Issues[link]

Pros[link]

Light rail saves operating costs over buses.^[39] Funding sources for light rail have increased nearly every year, since 1995.^[40]

Cons[link]

In 2007 the U.S. passenger fares collected for light rail was $311,000,000. The operating and capital expenses were $4,211,000,000.^[41][42]

Light rail costs would be improved by having transit agencies with similar needs participate in standardization and joint procurement, especially for new systems.

"Officials from several manufacturers said that designing a rail car on the basis of unique specifications can add from $20 million to $100 million to the cost of the order... Officials from five of the six manufacturers we interviewed said that the erratic nature of U.S. rail car demand reduced their ability to maintain continuous production, which likely results in higher production costs per rail car."^[43]

A study from 2004 focusing on the St. Louis Metrolink light rail system has shown that it would cost less to buy new fuel efficient cars for the low income riders of light rail who do not have cars than it does to subsidize light rail.^[44]

Business Friendly[link]

Pros[link]

Light rail is business friendly, bringing people and businesses together. Light rail construction has no significant impact on area businesses.^[45]

Cons[link]

In 2011 and 2012, the Central Corridor (Minnesota) light rail construction project negatively impacted businesses along the route, causing some to lose revenue and others to close.^{[46] [47]} The western portion of the Green Line (Los Angeles Metro) was built in part to provide mass transit service for workers in defense production facilities in Los Angeles. However, by the time the Green Line opened these facilities had been closed. As a result, projected ridership levels were not achieved.^[48]

Noise[link]

Pros[link]

Light rail is quiet,^[49] almost too quiet.^[50]

Cons[link]

Wheel truing is the first defense against screeching wheel-rail noise. "Without an effective wheel truing program, transit system efforts at noise control are severely hampered, and substantial additional cost beyond that which might reasonably be expected for a well-maintained transit system would be required."^[51]

Tram and light-rail transit systems around the world[link]

Tren de la Costa in Buenos Aires

Around the world there are many tram systems. Some date from the early 20th century, but many of the old systems were closed down in the mid-20th century, with the exceptions of many Eastern Europe countries. Even though many of the systems have closed down over the years there are still tram systems that have been operating much as they did when they were first built over a century ago. Some cities (such as Los Angeles and Jersey City) that once closed down their tram networks are now in the stages of reconstructing, or have rebuilt, some of their tramways. Most light rail services are currently committed to articulated vehicles like modern LRVs, i.e. trams, with the exception of large underground metro systems.

Capacity of light rail versus roads[link]

One line of light rail has a theoretical capacity of up to 8 times more than one lane of freeway (not counting buses) during peak times. Roads have ultimate capacity limits that can be determined by traffic engineering. They usually experience a chaotic breakdown in flow and a dramatic drop in speed (colloquially known as a traffic jam) if they exceed about 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane (each car roughly two seconds behind another).^[52] Since most people who drive to work or on business trips do so alone, studies show that the average car occupancy on many roads carrying commuters is only about 1.2 people per car during the high-demand rush hour periods of the day.^[53] This combination of factors limits roads carrying only automobile commuters to a maximum observed capacity of about 2,400 passengers per hour per lane. The problem can be mitigated by using high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and introducing ride-sharing programs, but in most cases the solution adopted has been to add more lanes to the roads. Simple arithmetic shows that in order to carry 20,000 automobile commuters per hour per direction, a freeway must be at least 18 lanes wide.

By contrast, light rail vehicles can travel in multi-car trains carrying a theoretical ridership up to 20,000 passengers per hour in much narrower rights-of-way, not much more than two car lanes wide for a double track system.^[54] They can often be run through existing city streets and parks, or placed in the medians of roads. If run in streets, trains are usually limited by city block lengths to about four 180-passenger vehicles (720 passengers). Operating on 2 minute headways using traffic signal progression, a well-designed two-track system can handle up to 30 trains per hour per track, achieving peak rates of over 20,000 passengers per hour in each direction. More advanced systems with separate rights-of-way using moving block signalling can exceed 25,000 passengers per hour per track.^[55]

Most light rail systems in the United States are limited by demand rather than capacity (by and large, most North American LRT systems carry less than 4000 persons per hour per direction), but Boston and San Francisco light rail lines carry 9,600 and 13,100 passengers per hour per track during rush hour.^[56] Elsewhere in North America, the Calgary C-Train and Monterrey Metro have higher light rail ridership than Boston or San Francisco. Systems outside North America often have much higher passenger volumes. The Manila Light Rail Transit System is one of the highest capacity ones, having been upgraded in a series of expansions to handle 40,000 passengers per hour per direction, and having carried as many as 582,989 passengers in a single day on its Line #1.^[57] It achieves this volume by running 4-car trains of up to 1350 passengers at a frequency of up to 30 trains per hour. It is important to note, however, that the Manila light rail system has full grade separation and as a result has many of the operating characteristics of a Metro system rather than a light rail system. 1350 passengers per train is more similar to heavy rail than light rail.

A bus line using its own lanes can have a capacity of 7,000 per hour (30 buses per direction, 120 passengers in articulated buses). Bus traffic is the traditional alternative to light rail, at least if very high capacity is not needed. Using buses, roads can get a high transit capacity. To have 30 buses per direction an hour, they must have priority in traffic lights and have their own lanes, as must trams to reach this density. Buses can go closer to each other than rail vehicles because of better braking capability. However, each bus vehicle requires a single driver, whereas a light rail train may have three to four cars of the same capacity in one train under the control of one driver, increasing labor costs of high- traffic BRT systems.

This chapter will handle about the capacity of a light rail and will compare it to the capacity of a car. For the light rail, the Siemens S70 is taken and for the car, a standard car with 5 seats is taken.

In Belgium and The Netherlands, engineers use ASVV (CROW, 2004) to have some standards in the transportation sector. The average length of a car is about 4.74 meter for a standard personal car (5 seats). The length of a light rail, Siemens S70, is 27.7 meters. This means that one light rail has approximately the same length as 5.8 cars.

The maximum occupancy of one car is 5 people; nevertheless the average occupancy in Belgium is only 1.8 people. The maximum capacity of the Siemens S70 is 220 persons. This means that one meter in a car is good for 1 person and one meter in a light rail is good for almost 8 persons. So the capacity of a light rail is about 8 times higher than the capacity of a car, if only the length of the vehicles is taken in consideration.

The average width of an automobile (car) is about 1.77 meters, while the average width of the Siemens S70 is about 2.7 meters. The area of a car is about 8.4 m² while the area taken up by a light rail car is about 74.8m². In a car every square meter has room for only 0.6 persons, while every square meter in a light-rail car has room for 2.9 persons. This means that a light rail is more capacity-effective than a car -- a lot more. Height is not taken into consideration because it is not normally a problem given minimum-clearance regulations for underpasses.

The peak passenger capacity per lane per hour depends on which types of vehicles are allowed at the roads. If only cars are allowed, the capacity will be less and will not increase when the traffic volume increases.

When there is also a bus driving on this route, the capacity of the lane will be more and will increase when the traffic level increases. And because the capacity of a light rail is higher than the capacity of a bus, there will be even more capacity when there is a combinatCarson cars and light rail. Table 3 shows an example of peak passenger capacity.

(Edson & Tennyson, 2003)

Safety[link]

This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (February 2012)

US-based research on traffic safety shows that public transport is safer than private motor vehicles, and that transportation systems which have their own infrastructure are safer than these means which don’t.

• Regional Passenger Rail (RPR) is the safest way to travel. Its casualty rate -- average number of injuries and fatalities per billion passenger miles -- is little more than one-quarter the rate for motor vehicles.

• Rail Rapid Transit (RRT) is somewhat safer than Light Rail Transit (LRT). RRT is almost twice as safe as motor vehicles, and LRT is more than one-and-a-half times safer than motor vehicles.

• Traveling by bus is the least safe form of public transport. Buses use the same infrastructure as motor vehicles, and so buses also suffer from traffic congestion and accidents on the roads.

• Private motor vehicles are the most dangerous form of at-grade motorized travel, with motorcycles the most dangerous of all.

There are reasons why public transport is safer than private transport. One is that since public transit's capacity is greater than that of private vehicles, public transport use can reduce the number of distinct vehicles on the road, and this in turn decreases the potential for accidents.

Integration of bicycles and light rail[link]

Light rail lines have various policies on bicycles.^[58] Some light rail lines fleets restrict bicycles on trains during peak hours. Some light rail lines, for example in San Francisco, ban bicycles completely.^{[59][dead link]}

Costs of light rail construction and operation[link]

The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. A survey of North American light rail projects^[60] shows that costs of most LRT systems range from $15 million per mile to over $100 million per mile. Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet (55 m) below ground level.^[61] These result in costs more typical of subways or rapid transit systems than light rail. At the other end of the scale, four systems (Baltimore, MD; Camden, NJ; Sacramento, CA; and Salt Lake City, UT) incurred costs of less than $20 million per mile. Over the U.S. as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction costs average about $35 million per mile.^[60]

By comparison, a freeway lane expansion typically costs $1.0 million to $8.5 million with an average of $2.3 million per lane mile (a lane mile is a mile-long lane) for two directions.^[62] Since a light rail track can carry up to 20,000 people per hour as compared with 2,000-2,200 vehicles per hour for one freeway lane,^[63] light rail is comparable in construction cost to freeways on a per passenger-mile basis. For example, in Boston and San Francisco, light rail lines carry 9,600 and 13,100 passengers per hour, respectively, in the peak direction during rush hour.^[56]

Combining highway expansion with LRT construction can save costs by doing both highway improvements and rail construction at the same time. As an example, Denver's T-REX (Transportation Expansion) project rebuilt interstate highways 25 and 225 and added a light-rail expansion for a total cost of $1.67 billion over five years.^[64] The cost of 17 miles (27 km) of highway improvements and 19 miles (31 km) of double-track light rail worked out to $19.3 million per highway lane-mile and $27.6 million per LRT track-mile. The project came in under budget and 22 months ahead of schedule.^[65]

LRT cost efficiency improves dramatically as ridership increases, as can be seen from the numbers above: the same rail line, with similar capital and operating costs, is far more efficient if it is carrying 20,000 people per hour than if it is carrying 2400. The Calgary, Alberta C-Train used many common light rail techniques to keep costs low, including minimizing underground and elevated trackage, sharing transit malls with buses, leasing rights-of-way from freight railroads, and combining LRT construction with freeway expansion. As a result, Calgary ranks toward the less expensive end of the scale with capital costs of around $24 million per mile.^[66]

However, Calgary's LRT ridership is much higher than any comparable U.S. light rail system at 300,000 passengers per weekday, and as a result its efficiency of capital is also much higher. Its capital costs were ⅓ that of the San Diego Trolley, a comparably sized U.S. system built at the same time, while by 2009 its ridership was approximately three times as high. Thus, Calgary's capital cost per passenger was much lower than that of San Diego. Its operating cost per passenger was also much lower because of its higher ridership. A typical C-Train vehicle costs only $163 per hour to operate, and since it averages 600 passengers per operating hour,^[67] Calgary Transit estimates that its LRT operating costs are only 27 cents per ride, versus $1.50 per ride on its buses.^[66]

Variations[link]

Trams operating on mainline railways[link]

Around Karlsruhe, Kassel and Saarbrücken in Germany, dual-voltage light rail trains partly use mainline railroad tracks, sharing these tracks with heavy-rail trains. In the Netherlands, this concept was first applied on the RijnGouweLijn. This allows commuters to ride directly into the city centre, rather than taking a mainline train only as far as a central station and then having change to a tram. In France similar tram-trains are planned for Paris, Mulhouse and Strasbourg; further projects exist.

Some of the issues involved in such schemes are:

• Compatibility of the safety systems
• Power supply of the track in relation to the power used by the vehicles (frequently different voltages, rarely third rail vs overhead wires)
• Width of the vehicles in relation to the position of the platforms
• Height of the platforms

There is a history of what would now be considered light-rail vehicles operating on heavy-rail rapid transit tracks in the U.S., especially in the case of interurban streetcars. Notable examples are Lehigh Valley Transit trains running on the Philadelphia and Western Railroad high-speed third rail line (now the Norristown High Speed Line). Such arrangements are almost impossible now, due to the Federal Railroad Administration refusing (for crash safety reasons) to allow non-FRA compliant railcars (i.e. subway and light rail vehicles) to run on the same tracks at the same times as compliant railcars, which includes locomotives and standard railroad passenger and freight equipment. Notable exceptions in the USA is the New Jersey Transit River Line from Camden to Trenton and Austin's Capital MetroRail, which have received exemptions on the provision that light rail operations occur only during daytime hours and Conrail freight service only at night, with several hours separating one operation from the other. The O-train in Ottawa also has freight service at certain hours.

Third-rail power for trams[link]

When electric streetcars were introduced in the late 19th century, conduit current collection was one of the first ways of supplying power, but it proved to be much more expensive, complicated, and trouble-prone than overhead wires. When electric street railways became ubiquitous, conduit power was used in those cities that did not permit overhead wires. In Europe, it was used in London, Paris, Berlin, Marseilles, Budapest and Prague. In the United States, it was used in parts of New York City and Washington DC.^[68] Third rail technology is being investigated for use on the Gold Coast of Australia for the Gold Coast Rapid Transit system.^[69]

In the French city of Bordeaux, the Citadis trams are powered by a third rail in the city center, where the tracks are not always segregated from pedestrians and cars.^[70] The third rail (actually two closely spaced rails) is placed in the middle of the track, and divided into eight-metre sections, each of which is powered only while it is completely covered by a tram. This minimises the risk of a person or animal coming into contact with a live rail. In outer areas, the trams switch to conventional overhead wires. In practice, the Bordeaux power system costs about three times as much as a conventional overhead wire system, and took 24 months to achieve acceptable levels of reliability, requiring replacement of all the main cables and power supplies.^[71] Operating and maintenance costs of the innovative power system still remain high. However, despite numerous service outages, the system was a success with the public, gaining up to 190,000 passengers per day.

See also[link]

References[link]