the added value of tramway systems

TABLE
OF CONTENTS
1
GROWING CONCERNS ABOUT URBAN CONGESTION
P3
2
DETERMINING WHICH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
IS BEST FOR YOUR NEEDS
P5
3
THE ADDED VALUE OF TRAMWAY SYSTEMS
P8
4
WHY A TRAMWAY SYSTEM OVER BRT?
P13
5
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TRAMWAY SYSTEMS
P20
6
CONCLUSION
P22
01
GROWING CONCERNS
ABOUT URBAN
CONGESTION
We live in a world where urban populations are expanding
rapidly and the need for clean, ef ficient transport systems
is becoming more pressing.
Cities are growing. T he numbers clus tering
in urban population centres in 20 14
nearly reaches 4billion1 with the
steepest grow th in emerging countries,
and t he development o f “mega- ci t ies”
with 10million inhabitant s or more is
increasing.
H o w e v e r, o n l y 1 2 % o f t h e g l o b a l u r b a n
population lives in these huge cities.
The rest live in smaller set tlement s with
nearly half of urban dwellers in cities or
towns of less than 10 0,0 0 0 occupant s
in size. These smaller set tlement s are
seeing the fastest percentage grow th in
population.
Those tasked with planning and
managing transpor t systems face huge
challenges in choosing and implementing
the right transpor t strategy to deal with
problems that have a direct impact on
economic grow th and the qualit y of life
o f t h e c i t y ’s i n h a b i t a n t s .
88
%
OF THE GLOBAL URBAN
POPUL ATION LIVES IN
SMALL CITIES OR TOWNS
(1) The 2014 revision of the Worlds Urbanization Prospects by the United
Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division
Growing concerns about urban congestion
3
A n increasing population means increasing road traf f ic and a subsequent rise in
c o n g e s t i o n . T h e C a s t r o l M a g n a t e c S t a r t- S t o p I n d e x ( 2 ) s h o w s c i t i e s i n t h e d e v e l o p i n g
world ranking high in the list of most congested set tlement s with Jakar ta, Istanbul and
Mexico Cit y taking the top three slot s.
CONGESTION C AN HURT
THE LOC AL ECONOMY
CONGES TION
PRODUC TIVIT Y LOST
DROP IN CUS TOMER
FOOTFALL
C onge s t ion c an hur t t he lo c al e conom y. B u s ine s s e s f ace a t w o f ol d p en al t y
– produc tivit y lost to the daily struggle employees have to make to reach the workplace and a drop in customer footfall if the journey to shop is too arduous.
There is a fur ther impact from gridlock
and congestion and that is pollution. The
top 10 most polluted cities in the world
are all growing cities in South East A sia
in India, P ak is t an and Ir an, as measur e d i n p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r ( " P M " ) 2 . 5 . (3) I n
such environment s there is a huge risk to
public health, which in turn has an economic cost for health ser vices and businesses.
E ase of movement and clean air are critical
fac tors to qualit y of life and should be a
priorit y for authorities looking to meet
the expec tations of their citizens and to
make their cities at trac tive for tourism
and business investment .
POLLUTION
4
Growing concerns about urban congestion
T he smaller set tlement s that will become
the mega-cities of tomorrow have the
oppor tunit y to choose the right transpor t
system and infrastruc ture to help at tain
these goals.
CHOOSE THE RIGHT
TR ANSPORT SYSTEM AND
INFR A STRUC TURE TO HELP
AT TAIN THESE GOAL S
T his White Paper will examine the reasons why tram systems should be high on
the consideration list for both public and
private transpor t operators.
HE A LT H
ECONOMIC COST
(2) http://www.newgeography.com/content/004849-is-jakarta-worlds-most-congested-city
(3) World Health Organisation Ambiant (outdoor) air pollution in cities database 2014
02
DETERMING WHICH
PUBLIC TR ANSPORTATION
IS BEST FOR YOUR NEEDS
Cities in developing countries have a unique oppor tunit y to plan their infrastruc ture
without facing the problems associated with transforming legac y transpor t systems
deeply embedded in centuries-old street design and architec ture.
BUS
BRT
The main options to provide a transpor t
n e t w o r k a r e B u s , B u s R a p i d Tr a n s i t ,
Tr a m w a y a n d M e t r o S y s t e m s . A m i x o f
these modes will be likely depending on
p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y a n d t h e c i t y ’s g e o g r a phical size but a core system is necessar y to underpin a cohesive transpor t
s t r a t e g y.
COHESIVE
TR ANSPORT STR ATEGY
The main considerations for an authorit y
reviewing it s transpor t needs include
c a p a c i t y, t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i v e i m p a c t o n
t h e c i t y, t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t a n d
u l t i m a t e l y, w h a t i s a f f o r d a b l e .
(4) Trade-Offs between Light Rail Vs Bus Rapid Transit
for Sydney, Monash University
TRAM
METRO
But these fac tors have to be balanced
w i t h p a s s e n g e r n e e d s a n d s t u d i e s (4) s h o w
that these are easily identif iable. Users
want : qualit y stations that of fer safe
and swif t boarding, simple net work s
that are easily readable and navigable,
fast and reliable frequenc y of transpor t,
priorit y over general road traf f ic so
frustrating wait s in congested lanes are
avoided, and rides that are not stressful
or uncomfor table. These needs are not
limited to developed countries but are
also ver y valid in emerging cities. By
ignoring these passenger needs, transpor t authorities run the risk of lower
system adoption and may not achieve
their de-congestion objectives.
Determing which public transportation is best for your needs
5
IF WE LOOK AT THE FOUR M AIN TR ANSPORT OP TIONS
AVA IL A BLE, WE SEE TH AT E ACH ONE C ATERS
TO SPECIFIC TR ANSPORT NEEDS.
BUS
RAPID
TRANSIT
BUS
The standard on-street bus net work
has the advantage of being able to roll
straight on to the existing road infrast r u c t u r e a n d h a s a l o w s t a r t- u p c o s t
p e r v e h i c l e . H o w e v e r, c o s t s s o o n m o u n t
as buses have low capacit y per vehicle
and the f leet needs to expand to meet
the needs of a growing population. This
means more drivers need to be employed
with associated payroll cost s, road
net work s need to be upgraded, and stations /s tops need inves tment . A dditionall y, m o r e b u s e s w i l l b e r e q u i r e d a n d t h i s
will lead to increased traf f ic on roads.
T he key measurement of the capacit y
of a transpor t system is of Passengers
P er Hour P er Dir e c t ion (P P HP D) – b e s t
measured as how many total passenger
spaces per hour pass a given point on a
transit line in a single peak direc tion.
Buses rank lowes t for PPHPD.
C APE X VS. PPHPD
6
BR T systems are planned and integrated
net work s. Key features include dedicated
lanes for buses, high frequenc y ser vices,
specif ically designed boarding stations
and pre-embarking ticketing mechanisms
de s ign e d t o h elp s p e e d y p a s s en ger b o ar din g .
BR T systems share the advantages of
traditional bus net work s in that they are
relatively quick to implement . They are
also relatively inexpensive for a large
t r a n s p o r t c a p a c i t y. T h e y a r e f a s t e r o n
shor t to mid-distance routes than roadsharing buses but the infrastruc ture
required does take up a larger area of
the road network.
U l t i m a t e l y, l a r g e c o n s t a n t l y - m o v i n g B R T
f leet s contribute to an unat trac tive cit y
image and to serious increases in pollution if reliant on diesel engines.
(PA SSENGERS PER HOUR PER DIREC TION)
Determing which public transportation is best for your needs
METRO
Metro s ys tems of fer high capacit y with
a PPHPD over 15,0 0 0 that can easily be
increased provided station plat forms are
properly designed at the project stage.
Metros of fer fast journey speeds from
outer zones to the central inner areas
and have a clear separation from road
traf f ic. When running underground, they
h a v e l i t t l e v i s i b l e i m p a c t o n t h e s u rface struc ture and their elec trical power
source is also friendlier to the environment.
H o w e v e r, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a M e t r o
net work compared to other transpor t
s y s t ems is v er y e x p ensi v e (ci t e d t w o t o
four times more costly than a tramway
s y s t e m w h e n l o o k i n g a t t h e t o t a l i n v e s tm e n t c o s t p e r k i l o m e t r e (5), w h e t e r i t i s i n
tunnels or on viaduc t s.).
TRAM
Tr a m w a y s y s t e m s w e r e h i s t o r i c a l l y d e ployed on mixed use thoroughfares where
t hey earned t he name ‘s t ree t car s’ but
they have evolved a great deal and it is
recognised that they are much more ef f icient when running on par tly segregated
lanes. They are easier to inser t into cit y
centres than other s ys tems and the capacit y and frequenc y mean large numbers
of passengers can be carried.
I n t e r m s o f c a p a c i t y, t r a m w a y s y s t e m s
are t ypically positioned bet ween a bus
and a metro.
From a passenger point of view they are
v e r y ap p r e c i a t e d f o r t h e i r e a s e - o f- b o ar d i n g ,
low noise and comfor t while elec tric
power gives them a cleaner bill of health
in regard to pollution.
A QUALITATIVE A SSESSMENT OF COST VS. TR ANSPORTATION SYSTEM
(5) The Tramway, AKA LRT, AKA VKT study by Transdev 2010
Determing which public transportation is best for your needs
7
03
THE A DDED VA L UE
OF TR A MWAY S YS TEMS
The tram has a noble pedigree and can
be seen as the f irst mass public transpor t system - there were horse-drawn
t r am s in u s e a t t h e t ur n o f t h e 1 9 th c e n t ur y. T h e y w er e c er t ainl y l e s s p o llu t in g
bar the need for a shovel and a manure
bucket, although passenger comfor t may
h a v e b e e n l o w o n t h e l i s t o f p r i o r i t i e s .
But put ting aside romantic visions of the
past, it is clear that advances in engineering technology combined with the
commitment of for ward-thinking cit y
authorities have led to the development
of tramway systems that address the
c o n g e s t i o n p r o b l em s o f t h e 2 1 st c en t ur y.
This has already been seen with the
“r ebir t h” o f t r amw ay s in coun t r ie s such
a s F r a n c e , A l g e r i a , t h e U K a n d B r a z i l .
A closer look at the factors outlined in
Chap ter will show how trams can provide
an intelligent and elegant solution for
c i t y c o n g e s t i o n an d i t s a t t e n d an t p r o b l e m s .
In fac t, tramway systems do not just
answer a specif ic transpor t problem but
bring added benef it s to a cit y that include regeneration, economic grow th and
enhance d ‘quali t y o f li f e’
A. TR ANSPORT C APACIT Y
The key statistics for any plan are how many passengers can be carried and how freq u e n t l y ? Tr a m c a p a c i t y c a n r a n g e f r o m 2 0 0 t o 4 5 0 p a s s e n g e r s c a r r i e d a s a m i x o f s e a t e d
and standing together with some wheelchair spaces.
8
The added value of tramway systems
E stimates show a single tram unit system has a PPHPD of 2,0 0 0 to 8,0 0 0 passengers,
while a double tram unit system bet ween 6,0 0 0 and 14,0 0 0. A s a rough guide, one
t r am w h en f ull y l o ade d c an c ar r y a s m an y p e op l e a s 17 5 f ull c ar s – c an y o u im agin e t h e
impac t on the perceived at trac tiveness of a cit y if thousands of car journeys were substituted in this way?
The abilit y to move so many people around a cit y on a system that has a relatively small
geographic footprint is a huge benef it . W ith a tram width, on average, of less than
three metres it is apparent that running one tram line in each direc tion will not dominate
main thoroughfares and separation barriers from motor vehicles will be easy to inser t .
SMALL FOOTPRINT ON CIT YSC APE
20 0 people
17 5 c ar s
2 buses
1 tram
Occasionally trams may share the road with cars and buses at junc tions and crossroads
but giving the tram the priorit y right of way at such point s will keep a net work running
s m o o t h l y . T h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f a d e d i c a t e d t r a m l a n e w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g c i t y r o a d a r c h i t e cture does not need roof level f lyovers or tunnels and means cit y life at street level is
n o t d i s r u p t e d : p e d e s t r i a n c r o s s i n g s c a n b e b a r r i e r- f r e e a n d e x i s t i n g r o a d t r a f f i c c r o s s i n g s
do not have to be removed but can be adapted to fac tor in trams.
The added value of tramway systems
9
B. PA SSENGER SATISFAC TION
Depending on the model, trams can have a low f loor for kerb level access or a high f loor
ser ved by purpose-built plat forms. Either option is a boon for passengers who do not
hav e t o climb up or do w n s t ep s . Young f amilie s w i t h b ab y s t r oller s and older p e ople
with mobilit y issues will f ind it a lot easier to board and disembark , helped by the minim u m g a p b e t w e e n t h e p l a t f o r m a n d t h e d o o r. Tr a m s t o p s a r e a l s o b u i l t p a r a l l e l t o t h e
t r ack s o t ha t t her e is no ‘cr e ep’ acr o s s mi xe d t r a f f ic lane s .
Passenger expec tations of a modern transpor t system are high. Light, air y and quieter
f o r m s o f t r an s p o r t ar e ap p r e c i a t e d b o t h b y t h o s e r i din g w i t hin t h em an d t h o s e n e ar b y.
The elec trical power supply keeps noise levels and vibrations low while technical
s o l u t i o n s a r e n o w a v a i l a b l e t o d e a l w i t h t h e a g g r a v a t i n g s q u e a l o f t i g h t- t u r n i n g t r a m
wheels.
Modern tram interior design gives passengers a greater perception of space thank s to
bigger windows and door ways so when even s tanding capacit y is reached carriages do
n o t a p p e a r c l a u s t r o p h o b i c a l l y f u l l . C o n t r o l l e d a i r- c o n d i t i o n i n g a n d h e a t i n g s y s t e m s a r e
now standard for any tram f leet .
F i n a l l y, r e s i d e n t s a n d b u s i n e s s e s f i n d a r e a s s u r a n c e o f p e r m a n e n c e i n t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f
a tram net work and this generates goodwill towards the authorities. In comparison, bus
r o u t e s c a n b e s w i t c h e d a t a m o m e n t ’s n o t i c e c a u s i n g h a v o c f o r t h o s e p l a n n i n g f o r t h e
long term.
10
The added value of tramway systems
C. ENERGY EFFICIENT
Tr a m s o f f e r c o m p a r a b l e e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y p e r p a s s e n g e r k i l o m e t r e c o m p a r e d t o c a r s o r
buses. Compared to metro, they have a comparable energy ef f icienc y but they do not
need to power element s from infrastruc ture such as escalators, lif t s or cooling fans.
E xamples of the kind of innovations that help deliver energy ef f iciencies include
cont rolled heat ing s y s t ems t hat s wit ch o f f when no t needed and ‘regenerat i ve’ brakes
that recover kinetic energy lost in braking and feed it through to power systems.
The energy ef f icienc y has an environmental dividend and an impor tant key to acceptance
of tram systems are their greener credentials. No transpor t system has zero environmental impac t but trams are low level local polluters and create fewer C02 emissions
when in operation compared to diesel-driven vehicles.
ENERGY EFFICIENC Y
2,45
(MEG A JOULE PER PA SSENGER KILOME TRE)
1,05
C ar
Bus
0,56
0,46
Tr a m
Metro
D. URBAN RENE WAL AND CIT Y GROW TH
Tr a m w a y s y s t e m s i n t e g r a t e w e l l i n t o a c i t y s c a p e a n d a l l o w a u t h o r i t i e s t o m a k e z o n e s
m o r e a t t r a c t i v e . Tr a m s l e a v e a s m a l l e r f o o t p r i n t o n t h e c i t y a n d a l l o w m o r e o p t i o n s f o r
landscaping, such as park s, roadside embankment s and a greater s trategic use of space
for pedestrians.
The added value of tramway systems
11
Authorities that implement tramway systems of ten see a good oppor tunit y for wider
urban renewal and the deployment can ac t as a catalyst to rethink and reframe a posit i v e v i s i o n f o r a c i t y.
T h e p u b l i c s h o w s a g e n e r a l g o o d w i l l (6) t o w a r d s t r a m s n o t o f f e r e d t o o t h e r f o r m s o f
t r a n s p o r t a n d t h i s c a n b e h a r n e s s e d b y a u t h o r i t i e s t o o f f s e t a n n o y a n c e a t t h e c o n s t r u ction work s and disruption to roads that comes with building any new transpor t initiative.
Even the non-commuter can benef it from the introduc tion of a tramway system.
Proper t y prices have been shown to rise for buildings adjacent to tramways, for ins tance
p r i c e s j u m p e d b y 1 5 -2 0 % i n F r e i b u r g , G e r m a n y a n d 2 5 % i n O n t a r i o , C a n a d a (7) a f t e r i m p l e mentation.
E. LOW OPER ATING COSTS
Tr a m w a y c a p e x c o s t s a r e o f t e n s e e n a s e x p e n s i v e . H o w e v e r, t h a n k s t o t h e b e n e f i t o f
experience, capex cos t s can now be kept low by s tandardising carriages, s tations and
maintenance depot s while high upfront investment in rolling stock is justif ied by length
of ser vice for tram carriages – an estimated 30 years.
In addition, tram net work s are adaptable and can deliver economies of scale in both
l a b o u r a n d p o w e r c o s t s . Tr a m f l e e t s c a n a d d m o r e c a p a c i t y p e r d r i v e r t h a n B T R o r b u s
– s o w a g e c o s t s a r e p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l o w e r.
12
The added value of tramway systems
(6) Trade-Offs between Light Rail Vs Bus Rapid Transit for Sydney, Monash University
(7) M&S - Business Intelligence, BRT Vs LRT Positioning, July 2014
04
WH Y A TR A MWAY S YS TEM
OVER BRT ?
Tr a n s p o r t a u t h o r i t i e s c a n n o t d e l a y m a k i n g
a choice regarding the right transpor t
s y s t e m f o r t h e i r c i t y ’s 2 1 s t c e n t u r y
needs.
The choices for a modern transpor t
n e t w o r k r e a l l y b o i l d o w n t o t w o : Tr a m w a y S y s t e m s o r B u s R a p i d Tr a n s i t S y s tems.
L ack of planned integration will cause
overall cost s to rise and result in a complex, hard-to-navigate, tangle of travel
net work s that will alienate commuters
a n d t h a t w i l l u n d e r m i n e a c i t y ’s e c o n o m i c
prospects.
Both systems are already in place in
numerous locations around the world
and there is plent y of evidence to help
cit y and transpor t authorities make an
informed decision on what will best meet
their needs.
Why a tramway system over BRT
13
LET ’S LOOK AT THE KE Y POINT S OF COMPARISON BET WEEN
T R A M W A Y S Y S T E M S A N D B R T.
City
Very good
14
Why a tramway system over BR
Good
Average
Poor
A . PHYSIC AL FOOTPRINT
The f irst prac tical step is to assess how much space is available for a transpor t net work
and what options exist for fur ther expansion within the cit y to meet future needs. It
may only be a mat ter of half a metre but with a single tram width at 3m it is shor ter
than a BR T vehicle, which measures on average 3.5m.
TRAM
BRT 2 L ANES
VS
3M
~7M
3M
~7M
~7M
~14M
Multiply the width by double lanes and fac tor in the size of s t ations /s tops for a BR T and
it will be apparent tramway s ys tems will take up a smaller amount of road.
A d d i t i o n a l l y, B R T e x p a n s i o n o f t e n r e q u i r e s d e d i c a t e d b u s l a n e s t o s t a r t m e r g i n g w i t h
regular road traf f ic, of fset ting any speed gains.
B. C APACIT Y
TRAM
BRT
VS
420 passengers per vehicule
150 passengers per vehicule
Why a tramway system over BRT
15
N u m b e r- c r u n c h i n g s h o w s t h a t t r a m s c a n c a r r y m o r e p a s s e n g e r s p e r v e h i c l e t h a n b u s e s
(ma ximum 42 0 pas s enger s ver sus 1 5 0 pas s enger s), s o i f oper at ing at t he s ame f r equenc y of approximately once ever y 3 minutes the total PPHPD numbers are much higher for
trams. A single lane tram system delivers a PPHPD of 2,0 0 0 - 14,0 0 0 while a BR T single
lane system delivers 1,0 0 0 - 5,0 0 0.
Because they are more f lexible, BR T are of ten mixed with car traf f ic. This has of ten
d r a m a t i c i m p a c t o n t h e s p e e d a n d c o n v e n i e n c e o f B R Ts .
C. ACCESSIBILIT Y
Tr a m s p r o v i d e e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e t r a n s p o r t f o r a l l t y p e s o f c o m m u t e r s f o r t h r e e m a i n r e a sons: there are no s tairs to climb, there is a minimal gap of 2 cm bet ween the tram and
the plat form, and there are wide and numerous doors for ef f icient loading and unloading.
TRAM
BRT
VS
Easily accessible
Complicated access
These fac tors mean it is much quicker and easier for tram users to reach and board a
tram and then exit to their f inal destination. In contrast, passengers at BR T net work s
of ten f ind steps are needed to navigate underground and overpass areas to reach dedicated BR T station hubs.
BR T stops have to be high plat form to help with speedy boarding so existing regular
s t r e e t- l e v e l b u s s t o p s w i l l b e u n u s a b l e . A l t o g e t h e r, m o r e t i m e i s s p e n t r e a c h i n g a B R T
station, boarding and disembarking, making for a longer commute and a less ef f icient
system.
A ge bands are growing at both ends of the spec trum in cities, with communities featuring
more young families and older people as life expec tanc y improves. Their transpor t needs
n e e d t o b e f a c t o r e d i n t o c r e a t i n g a p a s s e n g e r- f r i e n d l y a n d e f f i c i e n t s y s t e m .
16
Why a tramway system over BR
D. COMFORT
A ll passengers want a ride that leaves them in a good frame of mind for star ting the
work day – one that is stress free and where they have not been crammed into a small
area and had to sacrif ice personal space. Buses are bumpier in transit, have smaller
windows, of fer less space and are noisier – even when powered by a hybrid engine –
with a decibel level 10 point s above that of trams at 75-85db.
TRAM
BRT
VS
75-85 dB
85-95 dB
E. ENVIRONMENTAL FAC TORS
Choosing a transpor t system is about more than the f inancial cost of moving passengers
from A to B. There are hidden cost s that impac t on the local environment and health of
citizens.
Seven million deaths globally are at tributed to air pollution. Some cities suf fer more
t h a n 1 0 t i m e s t h e r e c o m m e n d e d W o r l d H e a l t h O r g a n i s a t i o n g u i d e l i n e l i m i t s (8).
TRAM
BRT
VS
3 gr of CO2
(8) Climate and Clean Air Coalition/Urban Health
84 gr of CO2
Why a tramway system over BRT
17
Tr a n s p o r t i s n o t t h e o n l y c o n t r i b u t o r t o c i t y p o l l u t i o n b u t p l a y s i t s p a r t a n d a u t h o r i t i e s
should consider the C02 emissions produced by their choice of system. Construction work
will produce similar amount s of emissions for trams and buses but buses produce the most
C02 when in operation. A nd as well as impac ting health pollution these emissions contribute to global warming.
F. C O S T
I t i s a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e c o s t o f b u i l d i n g a t r a m s y s t e m i s m o r e e x p e n s i v e t h a n a B R T.
Various studies, par ticularly of systems in European and Nor th A merican cities, look
deeper into this and tramway systems are of ten cited as 2.5 times more expensive in
terms of investment cost.
H o w e v e r, r e c e n t r e s e a r c h i n A u s t r a l i a / N e w Z e a l a n d s h o w s t h a t c a p i t a l c o s t s a r e l e v e l l i n g
out as BR T companies tr y to implement higher standards. One comparative study shows
a r a t i o o f 1 t o 1 . 7 f o r t h e c a p i t a l c o s t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n B R T a n d Tr a m w a y s y s t e m s .
But upfront operating and investment cost s only paint half the pic ture and they can be
o u t w e i g h e d b y o t h e r b e n e f i t s . B R T s y s t e m s o f f e r l o w e r c a p a c i t y, h i g h e r d i s r u p t i o n t o
businesses, a poorer level of ser vice and bigger cost s for future expansion, and these
need to be factored into the equation.
One accurate means of comparison is the cost per kilometre travelled per passenger
p lac e - w i t h p lac e b ein g 4 - 6 p a s s en g er s p er s quar e m e t r e (a mi x o f s t an din g an d s i tting). T he benchmark below shows that the total cos t per passenger transpor ted work s
o u t t o b e a n a v e r a g e 3 0 % c h e a p e r f o r t r a m s v e r s u s B R T.
TRAM
BRT
VS
COST PER TR AVELER
18
Why a tramway system over BRT
+ 30%
G. IMPAC T ON THE CIT Y
T here are plent y of examples of the benef icial ef fec t on the appearance of a cit y s timulated by the introduc tion of a tramway system. The development of a tramway system
easily integrates into cit y-wide re-planning and beautif ication projec t s – tram rails can
even run over grass.
A tramway system releases space when taking over a previous street traf f ic thoroughf a r e a n d t h i s c a n b e u s e d t o c r e a t e a m o r e a t t r a c t i v e p e d e s t r i a n p a t h o r c y c l e w a y, f o r
instance. This contrast s with the space taken up by a BR T system – and fur ther expansion o f BR T onl y e a t s f ur t her in t o av ailable p o t en t ial ‘gr e en’ sp ace.
Why a tramway system over BRT
19
05
FURTHER CONSIDER ATIONS
FOR DEVELOPEMENT
OF TR A MWAY S YS TEMS
While a modern tramway system of fers many answers to the problems of the congested
cit y it is still not the per fec t solution. A ll transpor t systems can be improved and ref ined and t wo big fac tors that should be considered before green-lighting a projec t inc lu de c o n s t r u c t i o n an d t e c hn o l o g y.
A. CONSTRUCTION
While construc tion cost s have already been scrutinised it needs to be borne in mind that
i n t r o d u c i n g a t r a m w a y s y s t e m c a n t a k e b e t w e e n 3 6 - 4 5 m o n t h s . D i s r u p t i o n t o t h e c i t y ’s
transpor t net work s and by association it s businesses will be comparable to BR T but
there will still be disturbance.
L ocal businesses can lose foot fall or even have to close if they are par tly inaccessible
due to building work s. There can be a big impac t on their future if they are out of ac tion
for a long period of time and the cit y will have to pick up the bill for reimbursement
c o s t s , w hi c h c an a d d up c o n s i der ab l y.
There will be some impac t on pedestrian and traf f ic movement while construc tion takes
place. This is unavoidable but the aim should be to manage the disruption in a controll e d a n d e f f i c i e n t w a y s o p e o p l e a r e o n l y i n c o n v e n i e n c e d f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e .
The annoyance of noise from building sites should not be underestimated. Regulations
regarding noise may mean construc tion can only take place bet ween cer tain hours so,
o n c e a g a i n , t h e q u i c k e r a s y s t e m c a n b e b u i l t t h e b e t t e r.
20
Further considerations for development of tramway systems
B. TECHNOLOGY
Moving from brick s to click s and swipes, modern transpor t net work s are embedding
more and more technology into their systems. The benef it s are manifest and include
data collec tion on travellers that can be used to optimise the net work to the benef it of
cus tomers. Data collec tion allows the peak times and s tress point s on routes to be easily
identif ied so frequenc y and capacit y can be adjus ted – of ten in real time.
In regard to the user experience, data on vehicle location allows commuters to access
i n f o r m a t i o n o n s c h e d u l i n g a n d w a i t i n g t i m e s w i t h p i n p o i n t a c c u r a c y . C o n s u m e r- f r i e n d l y
apps integrated with the s ys tem allow travellers to easily purchase ticket s, access timet ab l e s , r e a d r e al -t im e in f o r m a t i o n o n n e t w o r k p r o b l em s an d m an ag e t h eir o w n i t in er ar y.
Commercial par tnership possibilities are opened up and operators can tap new revenue
streams, such as adver tising and sponsorship.
H o w e v e r, c o n s u m e r s n o w e x p e c t a s e a m l e s s o n l i n e e x p e r i e n c e a n d w i l l f i n d i t f r u s t r a ting to have to log in and out of dif ferent operator apps or websites as they cross a cit y
via dif ferent modes of transpor t .
They want a seamless ride too and one of the biggest hurdles to overcome is the transfer time from bus to tram. A ny tool that can help reduce this transfer time will be
greatly appreciated.
A modern cit y needs to f ind a way to integrate the sof t ware systems used by dif ferent
operators within it s boundaries. This could be a costly exercise but cit y authorities need
to understand consumer expec tations of technology and how they can be met .
Further considerations for development of tramway systems
21
06
CONCLUSION
The cit y of the future needs a transpor t net work f it for purpose that it s population will
e m b r a c e a s a n e n h a n c e m e n t t o t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s . Tr a m w a y s y s t e m s a n s w e r t o m o s t o f t h e
necessar y criteria.
They have a cheaper Total
Cost of Ownership over the
long-term.
They can scale up and expand
at a lower cost than rivals.
They are low-polluters and
energy efficient.
Trams carry more people and
are cheaper when measured
at cost per km/place.
Tram routes can help ‘beautify’
a city and are very well received
by passengers and citizens alike.
But they will have to integrate with existing net work s and their construc tion impac t
needs to be minimised.
Above all, tramway systems need to be af fordable for the budget s available. At present,
the upfront cos t s can appear intimidating; no mat ter that the long-term pay of f brings
so many measurable benef it s.
A l s t o m Tr a n s p o r t r e c o g n i s e s t h e s e i s s u e s a n d h a s b e e n w o r k i n g o n a b r e a k t h r o u g h p r o j e c t
that should deliver the best solution for growing countries looking to complement their
transpor t systems.
L ook for details of this exciting development in cit y transpor t net work s at
w w w.als t om.com / inno v a t ions - UI T P 2 0 1 5.
22
Conclusion
ALSTOM Transport / TOMA - C.Sasso © MARS / Richez-Associés / Rêve Ville
tive companies. The technical and other data contained in this document is provided for information only. ALSTOM reserves the right to revise or change this data at any time without further notice. Photographs: ©
© - ALSTOM 2015. ALSTOM, the ALSTOM logo and any alternative version thereof are trademarks and service marks of ALSTOM. The other names mentioned, registered or not, are the property of their respec-
Alstom Transport
48, rue Albert Dhalenne
93482 Saint-Ouen Cedex,France
Telephone: +33 1 57 06 90 00
www.alstom.com