Light rail vs. bus comparative costs...

Curious if there has been a study that indicates the comparative costs of light rail versus buses per passenger mile or some such measurement. I'm thinking that maybe urban studies guy Richard Florida or someone like him has done the math on the two modes of mass transit.

I use to be a light rail guy, but I'm thinking that buses with designated bus lanes during rush hours that are CNG or electric powered might be much less expensive than pricey light rail. Ottawa, Canada has designed bus roads, so I noticed. Also, a bus route is more flexible and can in some circumstances be flexible enough to deviate from its designated route to accommodate special needs passengers.

Is the Woodward light rail route a done deal or still on the chalkboard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Publican

Curious if there has been a study that indicates the comparative costs of light rail versus buses per passenger mile or some such measurement. I'm thinking that maybe urban studies guy Richard Florida or someone like him has done the math on the two modes of mass transit.

I use to be a light rail guy, but I'm thinking that buses with designated bus lanes during rush hours that are CNG or electric powered might be much less expensive than pricey light rail. Ottawa, Canada has designed bus roads, so I noticed. Also, a bus route is more flexible and can in some circumstances be flexible enough to deviate from its designated route to accommodate special needs passengers.

Is the Woodward light rail route a done deal or still on the chalkboard?

---

I'm sure figures are out there, but the general consensus is:

Capital Cost [[to build):
Light Rail - high
Bus RT - low

Operating Cost:
Light Rail - low
Bus RT - high

Therefore....

For high-density, high-traffic established routes, do LR if you can raise the capital. [[Think Woodward Avenue.)

For low-density or lower-traffic routes that might change over time, do BRT.

You don't want to have rail where things change over time. You built rail to Oakland Mall -- then the mall closes. But the rail lives on.

Since we are capital challenged now, and have so many very important demands on our capital resources, I would do BRT. Its not perfect, but its good enough. In 30 years when Detroit is big and bold again, you can replace.

I notice nobody is talking subway anymore. Why? Because of the capital costs. The transitheads still want LRT. I personally believe they're ignoring the future here. Once, large computers ruled. Today, its lots of little servers by the thousands. BRT is more likely to evolve into very distributed, low impact systems. Self-driven vehicles that take you where you want to go. Both on the roads, and for the public. Think big.

I don't really view light rail and BRT as competitors, despite what it looks like. I agree, Wes, that the 2 systems can each make sense in different circumstances. We will not have the resources in the foreseeable decade or 2 to have a pervasive light rail system in the region. But there could be BRT in place. Over the next few decades, other transit elements including light rail could be added as projects make sense economically and practically. I think M1 rail makes sense to build now, with connections to BRT and crosstown buses. It should be extended into Oakland County when the money is available. Other light rail projects could be added to the region as demand merits and resources allow.

While the operating costs of buses [[mostly fuel) is higher, overhead wire requires constant maintenance on light rail. Outside underrunning third rail is more maintenance free, but then you need a protected right-of-way to avoid electrocutions.

Doing a cost comparison of capital costs is more or less impossible because bus rapid transit is not a specific service with definite characteristics that are always the same. There is a great deal of variety in how you implement BRT. You have to have at least some of the following items, and which ones you select impact the cost:

1. Dedicated right-of-way over some or all of the route
2. Upgraded stations with fare kiosks [[so you don't pay on the bus)
3. Traffic signal modifications to speed up the bus service [[there are various flavors of this)
4. Upgraded bus [[e.g. larger, articulated, low floor so wheelchair users can simply roll on from the station)
5. Next-bus electronic displays at the stations

There is much less variety in light rail, so it's easier to price it out. Either can provide a similar service, but how similar depends on the details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Publican

Curious if there has been a study that indicates the comparative costs of light rail versus buses per passenger mile or some such measurement. I'm thinking that maybe urban studies guy Richard Florida or someone like him has done the math on the two modes of mass transit.

I use to be a light rail guy, but I'm thinking that buses with designated bus lanes during rush hours that are CNG or electric powered might be much less expensive than pricey light rail. Ottawa, Canada has designed bus roads, so I noticed. Also, a bus route is more flexible and can in some circumstances be flexible enough to deviate from its designated route to accommodate special needs passengers.


Is the Woodward light rail route a done deal or still on the chalkboard?

---

Here and now, BRT would have been cheaper and just as effective. But transportation planning is all about looking into the future.

In my opinion, Woodward is supposed to be the trunk line for all transit riders. It's the place where all development is happening, and the highest capacity route connecting neighborhoods and suburbs to downtown.

Eventually E-W roads should be upgraded to BRT and in a perfect world, Woodward would be an elevated line or subway. But at the present time that's not practical. At least with lrt you show permanent commitment towards providing service. Think of the people mover. It's not like it gets stellar ridership and it's a money loser. But it's built, expensive to take down, expensive to shut down, so there is really no option other than to let it run.

If I was a developer, I'd see rails in the ground as serious commitment from the city and region to provide better access to job centers and neighborhoods. BRT can have nice stations, but you could always cease service and let a crappy and unreliable local bus system use them

Since Detroit's proposal has been diluted and downgraded to death and is foolishly in a curbside alignment, I reverse my argument that streetcars are a must for mobility over buses. I don't think curbside rail works and it's not a functional concept most communities use since center running is pretty much the standard. I hope Detroit will prove doubters like me wrong and show that it's successful model, or else it will end up being an embarassment, or at best a transit novelty. Though I think it will help attract development as an area amenity, but unfortunately won't serve as a major transit spine as I had hoped.

BRT would be good for streets such as Warren from east to west, Gratiot[[until it gets lightrail), Jefferson, and 8 mile rd

A key point is "designated bus lanes" such as I noticed in Ottawa, Canada. Here in Vancouver, Washington we have clean buses that run on time. Another thing that I like is that drivers we go on the PA system and tell passengers to take their feet off of seats. In San Diego young guys would prop their feet on other seats and sometimes feel affronted if you motioned to them to move so you could sit down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Publican

Curious if there has been a study that indicates the comparative costs of light rail versus buses per passenger mile or some such measurement. I'm thinking that maybe urban studies guy Richard Florida or someone like him has done the math on the two modes of mass transit.

I use to be a light rail guy, but I'm thinking that buses with designated bus lanes during rush hours that are CNG or electric powered might be much less expensive than pricey light rail. Ottawa, Canada has designed bus roads, so I noticed. Also, a bus route is more flexible and can in some circumstances be flexible enough to deviate from its designated route to accommodate special needs passengers.

Is the Woodward light rail route a done deal or still on the chalkboard?

---

Dick Florida is not a transit guy.
There have been numerous studies done. Many however have a certain bias to them, depending upon who is paying for them so you really have to look at quite a bit of information to get to the truth.

This is not an easy topic to get your arms around. You get a lot of opinions and its often hard to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact. Your best bet is to look for benchmarks. The transit agency that impresses me the most around here is Blue Water in Port Huron. What they have been able to accomplish with a relatively small city is awesome. They were one converting their fleet to CNG [[Natural Gas) 20 years ago, and had bike racks on all buses a decade before AAATA did. AAATA provides great service, but its operational costs are comparatively huge. They did get what they pay for; its like a Cadillac, nice but way above what is required.

You're in luck. Several meetings are coming up that will discuss this topic locally. Keep your ears open and ask a lot of questions. Ask different people the same questions and see if you get different answers! http://smcg.informz.net/InformzDataS...anceId=3640824

Here is a comparison of three modes. Buses alone will have a smaller capital cost but may have a larger per passenger cost [[depending upon route) http://www.woodwardanalysis.com/evaluation/

Check out the TCRP Bus rapid Transit Practitioners Guide [[report 118). should be available on the usdot website somewhere for free. That discusses comparative costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Here is a comparison of three modes. Buses alone will have a smaller capital cost but may have a larger per passenger cost [[depending upon route) http://www.woodwardanalysis.com/evaluation/

---

Obviously, the denser the route, the more LRT can shine particularly if you can run multi-car trains.

If the route is dense enough, HRT makes even more sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Outside underrunning third rail is more maintenance free, but then you need a protected right-of-way to avoid electrocutions.

---

Not any more,even street cars can be wireless.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/...treetcars.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Not any more,even street cars can be wireless.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/...treetcars.html

---

Maybe technology is there now, but previous efforts to use a slotted third rail between the running rails for power has fallen prey to snow, ice, and rain all of which are present in Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Maybe technology is there now, but previous efforts to use a slotted third rail between the running rails for power has fallen prey to snow, ice, and rain all of which are present in Detroit.

---

Oh, the technology is there now. I've rode on one in Europe. The overhead trolley collapses in certain downtown areas, and rises elsewhere. Pretty amazing. The trains I saw were Alstrom, see http://www.alstom.com/transport/prod...amway-citadis/ for a description of their urban 'wireless' trams that are in service now.

http://www.alstom.com/Global/Transpo...0image%204.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Oh, the technology is there now. I've rode on one in Europe.

---

When I was looking into this technology, it had not yet been deployed anywhere there was frequent winter snowfall, and there appeared to be serious problems in so doing. So far as I know, that was the only hurdle preventing us from seriously considering it here. That may have changed by now; I'm talking about what was known back in 2007 when I studied this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

When I was looking into this technology, it had not yet been deployed anywhere there was frequent winter snowfall, and there appeared to be serious problems in so doing. So far as I know, that was the only hurdle preventing us from seriously considering it here. That may have changed by now; I'm talking about what was known back in 2007 when I studied this.

---

If you study street railway history, they tried, at one time or another, just about every technical wrinkle out there.

1. Running cars with large clockwork springs wound up each morning at the power house.

2. Compressed air.

3. Stored steam.

4. A variety of compresses gases.

5. Top, bottom, and side running third rail.

6. Power slots in the street.

7. Successively energized power dots as the car passed over.

8. Storage v\batteries.

9. Single and double overhead wire.

10. Trolley poles with wheels and shoes.

11. Pantographs.

12. Trollers [[which is where the word "trolley" came from).