State of the Art in Light Rail TechnologyRTSA Auckland, August 2017

Scott Elaurant

Overview

1. Background – definitions & history2. LRT vehicle technology advances

– Standardisation– Modular; High capacity vehicles– High speed/low floor LRVs– Wire Free Systems

3. LRT systems technology 4. LRT Implementation

– Street running traffic aspects– Urban design

5. Cost Effectiveness6. Summary

1. About the Author

Scott Elaurant*With Jacobs:Glenelg Tram South Rd OverpassGlenelg Tram Extension 1 trafficGlenelg Tram Extension 2 conceptGlenelg Tram Extension benefits studyPort Rd, Outer Harbour Line studiesPerth Light Rail planningAuckland Light Rail business caseAuckland Light Rail reference design

*Currently Traffic Lead, Auckland Light Rail Reference Design

Prior to Jacobs:Brisbane Light Rail & Briztram studiesGold Coast Light Rail (alignment)

Brisbane Light Rail Proposal

1. Jacobs – light rail experience

Jacobs(from Australia)Melbourne tram extensions (numerous planning and design)Dublin Light Rail designGlenelg Tram Extension 1 designGold Coast Light Rail (signal priority)Perth Light Rail (planning)Sydney SE Light Rail designAuckland Light Rail planning Dublin Luas Light Rail(from USA)Pittsburgh Light Rail planning & designLos Angeles Gold Line designSan Francisco Light Rail designSeattle Link LRT design(London) Docklands Light Rail designManchester Metro extension design Seattle Link Transit Tunnel

1. Definitions – how do we define Light Rail?

**Light Rail Transit is:

• Passenger rail vehicle

• Light axle load

• Exclusive lanes or Separate corridor

**Tram is defined as:

• Small light rail vehicle

• In shared traffic lanes

**Definitions vary

LRT(exclusivelanes)

LRT(separatecorridor)

Tram(shared)

1. No consistent terminology

Priority A = No priority over trafficPriority B = Segregated lanes in streetPriority C = Separate corridor or fully grade separated

Passenger Rail Right of Way AUS/UK France Germany Canada/

USA

Priority A Tram Tram Strasse-Bahn Street Car

Priority B Light Rail Nouveaux Tramway

Stadte-Bahn Light Rail

Priority C Metro Metro U Bahn Light Rail

1. Background – Adelaide Trams History

Extensive network

• 1855 first horse drawn tram

• 1945 peak usage – 95 million annual trips

• Majority of network closed in 1950’s

• MTT commissioned over 300 electric trams

• 56km network in 1909; peak track length > 100km

Historic Network

2. LRT Vehicle Technology Advances

• System performance

• Standardisation

• Modular

• Capacity

• Body Articulation

• High Speed/Low floor

• Wireless power supply

• Energy Efficiency

• Examples

2. Advances: System Performance ComparisonSystem Opened Length Stations Peak Hw City Pop. Pass/

day

Grenoble 1987 36 km 74 2 minute 400,000 210,000

Nantes 1985 44 km 83 6 minute 600,000 274,000

Strasbourg 1994 57 km 72 3 minute 700,000 300,000*

Lyon 2000 52 km 84 4 minute 1,300,000 380,000*

Edmonton 1978 24 km 18 8 minute 900,000 98,000

Calgary 1981 60 km 45 4 minute 1,100,000 330,000

Portland, (Oregon)

1986 96 km 97 6 minute 2,300,000 130,000

Nottingham 2004 32 km 50 7 minute 700,000 25,000+

Dublin 2004 36 km 54 5 minute 1,200,000 89,000*

2. Advances: System Performance Comparison

Croydon

Docklands

Paris

BordeauxNantesStrasbourg

Berlin

Frankfurt

Stuttgart

AdelaideGold Coast

Melbourne

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

LRT & Tram Patronage vs System Length

LRT (segregated) systems out-perform Tram (shared) systems

2. Advances: Standardisation

• Alstom > 2000 Citadis

• Bombardier > 1500 Flexity

• CAF > 500 Urbos

Typical modern LRV:

• 30-33m length

• 2.65m width

• Standard gauge

• 3-4 double doors per side

• 70%+ Low floor (300mm)

2. Advances: High Capacity Vehicles

• Longer

• Higher capacity

• 12m = 80

• 23m = 150

• 30m = 200

• 45m = 300

Gold Coast LRT (45m Bombardier Flexity)

2. Advances: Modular Design

• LRVs may be coupled

• 2 x 33m = 66m = 450 pass/train = 6600 pass/hr

• Salt Lake City 4 units (120m) = 900 pass./train = 14500 pass/hr

2 Advances: High Level of service

AustralianLight Rail

2. Advances: Modular Design

• Economy of scale: larger LRVs are more efficient to buy and run

• No extra drivers, cabins, controls, comms

LRV Length Capacity Capacity Increase

CAPEX OPEX

30 metre 210 pass. $5M AUS

42 metre 310 pass. +50% +20% +10%

60 metre 420 pass. +100% +40% +30%

2. Advances: Capacity Summary

Tram/ LRV Vehicle Capacity

Frequency & Capacity (passengers per hr)

20 per hr 15 per hr 10 per hr 6 per hr

30m 200 pass 4000 3000 2000 1200

45m 320 pass 6400 4800 3200 1900

2 x 30m 450 pass 9000 6700 4500 2700

2 x 45m 600 pass 12800 9600 4800 2900

Busway 50 pass (120 buses)

6000

Freeway 6 lane (6000 cars)

8000

2. Advances: Body Articulation

• Low Floor LRV with pivoting bogie – best dynamic performance (Bombardier Flexity)

2. Advances: Body Articulation

• Multi-articulated, no axle – cheaper, lighter (Staedtler)

2. Advances: Bogie design = High speed + Low Floor

• Previously high speed OR 100% low floor

• 100% low floor designs require special bogies

• Rated speeds creeping up: 70 kph to 80 kph

• New CitadisSpirit = 100 kph

Low Floor (standard) High Speed (Istanbul)

Low Floor High Speed (Ottawa)All bogies by Alstom

2. Advances: Wireless Power supply

• Several options:

• Traditional 3rd Rail

• New APS (Alstom)

• NMH Batteries

• Super Capacitor (CAF)

• Technology advancing fast

• Limits gradient and stop spacing

Bordeaux LRT (APS power)

Nice LRT (battery for wireless sections)

2. Advances: Energy efficiency

• LRT Emissions << Cars

• LRT Emissions < BRT

• LRT Emissions < Heavy Rail

• Tram C+O phase =85.4ktCO2e

• Electric Bus C+O phase =111.2ktCO2e

(Alstom/Carbone4)

2. Advances: Energy efficiencyMode European Energy

Agency 2013International Energy Agency

2009National Atmospheric Emissions

Inventory (UK) 2008US Department of

Transportation 2010Rail 40 20 to 50 60 62LRT 40 20 to 50 65 100

Bus/BRT 115 30 to 90 89 179Passenger Cars 115 80 to 290 125 to 250 268Air 120 220 to 260 175 Not assessed

2. Advances: Energy efficiency

• One of the most energy efficient forms of public transport

• BRT generates less CO2 during construction of route and vehicles than LRT

• Tramway emits far less CO2 during operational phase

• Overall tramways emit far less CO2 over lifecycle than the most efficient BRT systems

• Light rail emits less CO2 than any motorised urban travel mode

– LRT = 40 gCO2/km Car = 160 gCO2/km– BRT = 60 gCO2/km– Heavy Rail = 80 gCO2/km

2. Advances: Recent Development Examples

• Bordeaux: 100% Low Floor LRVs

• Ottawa Confederation Line: High Speed + Low Floors, up to 100km/hr in outer suburbs

• Paris T5: Rubber Tyred LRVs

• Kaohsiung, Taiwan: First 100% wireless system

Kaohsiung (Taiwan)

Ottawa Confederations Line

3. LRT Systems Technology

• Signal control

• Pre-emption

• Passenger Information (on board)

• Passenger Information (stop)

• Ticketing

3. LRT Systems Technology: Signal Control

• “CapSys”: Signal priority for LRT

– Transponder on LRT; signal software can be modified

• Ban right turns across tracks

• Remove parking

• Shared track = inefficient

3. LRT Systems Technology: Signal Control

• Signal priority for LRT

• Standard practice in Europe

• Can be done in STREAMS

• Implemented in Gold Coast LRT

Integration of LRV into TCS (GoldLinq)

3. LRT Systems Technology: Pre-emption

• Minimising LRT traffic delay

• Aim for <4% stopped time at signals in France, Germany

• Requires careful analysis of phasing logic

• LRT priority may vary from 0 to 100%

• 100% in new French/German systems

• 2 key methods via pre-emption:

– Phase lengthening– Phase skipping

LRT Priority Strategy

3. LRT Systems Technology: Passenger Information

• Successful systems require real-time, clear and concise information.

• Suitable for deaf and sight impaired passengers

• Visual and Audio

• Calling points/Safety/Security information

3. LRT Systems Technology: Ticketing

• Electronic ticketing

• Platform-based ticketing rather than on-board

• Zonal/time/journey based

• Aim to remove the need for inspectors on every service

• Inspectors on random services for validation

• Using smart cards – multi modal and can offer discounts

• Mobile ticketing (NFC)

4. LRT Systems Implementation

• Stop Spacing

• Segregated track

• Pedestrianisation

• Integrated platforms

• Amenity improvements

4. LRT Systems Implementation: Stop Spacing

• Longer stop spacing in LRT

• Do not just replicate bus stops 400m apart

• 600m to 800m now common for LRT

• Higher average speed

• Passengers will walk further than for bus

• More efficient for operator

• More people attracted

LR Stop Spacing vs Speed (Arup)

4. LRT Systems Implementation: Segregated Track

No sharing with traffic:

• Safer system

• LRT more reliable

• LRT higher frequency

• Allows long vehicles

• Higher capacity

4. LRT Systems Implementation: Pedestrianisation

Pedestrian / LRT conflicts are critical

• Problem:

– Freedom of movement desirable– Uncontrolled pedes create

hazard• Pedestrian / LRT collisions are

largest safety risk

• Segregated track LRT safest

• Paving colour & texture contrast used to guide pedestrians

• Cobblestones deter pedestrians

4. LRT Systems Implementation: Pedestrianisation

Iconic architecture – Strasbourg Homme de Ferr

4. LRT Systems Implementation: Pedestrianisation

Pedestrian + LRT mall – Auckland proposal

4. LRT Systems Implementation: Integrated Platforms

• Good accessibility & high boarding capacity with low floor LRV

• Minimal impact on street amenity (can be positive impact)

4. LRT Systems Implementation: Amenity Uplift

• Make LRT corridors attractive walking environments

• High quality paving

• Grass track

• Street trees

4. LRT Systems Implementation: Urban Redevelopment

• LRT facilitates medium density linear development (4 to 6 story)

• Modify land use zoning to permit redevelopment, more housing

Redevelopment along Bordeaux LRT Ligne C (Google Image)

5. Cost effectiveness

• LRT supply industry is highly competitive – Alstom, Bombardier, CAF and Siemens are all active in Australian market

• Vehicle supply cost much lower than heavy rail rolling stock

– LRV (30m, 200 person) typically $3m to $4m each– Heavy rail (3 car emu, 450 person) typically $8m to $10m each

• Busways of similar standard are similar in capital cost to LRT

• LRT has lower operating costs than bus and heavy rail (in Australian context)

• Freeway costs are much higher: $20M+ per lane km = $120M per km for surface six lane freeway (LRT ½ to 2/3 this cost)

5. Cost effectiveness: Recent BRT & LRT unit costsSystem Year Cost Length Unit Cost

2015 $/kmSouth East Transit 2000 $520M 16.5 km $28M

Liverpool Parramatta T-Way 2003 $346M 30 km $9M

Northern Busway Auckland 2008 $294M NZ 7.4 km $25M

Inner Northern Busway 2008 $493M 4.5 km $70M

Eastern Busway 2011 $692M 4.2 km $91M

Glenelg Tram, Adelaide 2009 $154M 4.4 km $19M

Sydney Dulwich Hill LRT 2014 $179M 5.6 km $16M

Gold Coast Light Rail 2014 $953M 13 km $37M

Sydney SE LRT 2017 $2100M 12.1 km $87M

5. Cost effectiveness: Wider Economic Benefits (Adelaide example)

• Benefits calculated for productivity increase ( density)

• Move to More Productive Jobs (M2MPJ) shown but not recommended (no constraint)

• Assume 30 year analysis, 15 year development effect

• Employment benefit >> capital cost of project

• Property uplift benefit not statistically proven

Area of Benefit High Case

Middle Case

Low Case

All Zones <400m of Tram $332 Million

$224 Million

$111 Million

Zones < 400m of Tram excluding zones adjacent to North Terrace.

$372 Million

$172 Million

$85 Million

6. Summary

• Latest Australian LRT projects achieved demand within budgets

• New generation of LRT vehicles has increased capabilities:

– High capacity via length & modular design– Traffic signal priority via on-board technology– Potential for wireless operation– Availability of high-speed low-floor vehicles– Innovations permit segregated track LRT in narrow roads

• Boundary between LRT and Metro rail is becoming blurred

• LRT with priority is now more space efficient and cost efficient than freeways or busways.

www.jacobs.com | worldwide

Light Rail PlanningCurrent State of the Art

Scott ElaurantJuly 2017