TECHNIQUES OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY: QUALITY TRANSIT

BY JEFF KENWORTHY
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University

Photos by JEFF KENWORTHY

Contents:

1. Light Rail
2. Improving transit: The bus/light rail debate
3. The role of buses
4. Other factors in improving transit

Transit

There are always experts who see transit as a waste of money (eg Pickrell, 1990; Lave, 1992; Gordon and Richardson, 1989). However, there are few of the general public who do not see the critical role of quality transit systems in cities, even if they are not transit users themselves. Even conservatives in the US are recognising that transit should be improved in their cities. For example, Weyrich and Lind (1996, p3,4) from the Free Congress Foundation in their publication 'Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is it Time for a New Look?', say:

"The dominance of the automobile is not a free market outcome, but the result of massive government intervention on behalf of the automobile. That intervention came at the expense of privately owned, privately funded, tax paying public transit systems....A growing conservative constituency does use mass transit, when transit is high quality......Mass transit can serve some important conservative goals, including economic development, moving people off welfare and into productive employment, and strengthening feelings of community."

This new awareness, crossing former political divides, that it makes economic sense for a greater transit role in cities, is due to the kind of analyses which are now available showing:

1. Transit investment has double the economic benefit to a city than does highway investment (see chapter 2).
2. Transit can enable a city to use market forces to build up densities near stations where most services are located, thus creating more efficient sub-centers and minimising sprawl (Cervero, 1992a).
3. Transit enables a city to be more corridor-oriented where it is easier to provide infrastructure (Whitelegg, 1993).
4. Transit enhances the overall economic efficiency of a city; denser cities with less car use and more transit use spend a lower proportion of their gross regional product or wealth on passenger transportation (see chapter 3).

But perhaps the strongest appeal of transit-oriented planning today is that it offers genuine, high profile solutions to the environmental and social problems of the automobile dependent city. The sustainability agenda demands transit, especially the development of rail systems which are competitive with the car in passenger appeal and speed. This is not only because energy, emissions, noise and other problems of the automobile can be dramatically reduced with competitive electric rail systems which attract car drivers, but also because so much more can be done with the urban space generated by rails’ low land demands. For example, a double-track light rail system occupies 50 times less urban space than the highways and parking needed for cars. As Trancik (1986) shows, this can mean the renewal of so much 'lost space' in automobile dependent cities, as most new rail, especially surface light rail projects, are accompanied by urban design programmes which dramatically upgrade urban streetscapes.

Back to the top

Light Rail

Many cities are now finding that the best means to provide a quality transit spine for a city is with light rail. In fact, light rail's mixture of environmental friendliness, high quality and comparatively low cost has meant hundreds of cities, both large and small in Europe, North America, Australia and other nations, have joined the light rail revolution in recent years (Bayliss, 1989).

The important characteristics of light rail in terms of the broad sustainability agenda are that it is:

• electric, and hence it is part of a future based on renewable energy;
• fast, quiet and does not generate local emissions, so it can compete with the car whilst fitting into the existing urban fabric along narrow alignments, including being completely compatible with people on foot in pedestrianised city centres;
• flexible, as it can operate on present streets, negotiating roundabouts and turning at right angles, or it can run on its own dedicated right-of-way at speeds up to around 100km/h, depending on its design;
• adaptable, since its passenger carrying capacity can be increased with multiple unit trains (where the operating environment permits), and vehicles can be designed for dual power sources (AC power for use on existing heavy rail freight lines, switching to DC power for on-street operation, as in Karlsruhe in Germany);
• competitive with the car in image and functionality - many new light rail systems are sleek and aerodynamic, and operate as low floor systems, allowing easy access for wheelchairs, strollers, shopping buggies and elderly people;
• compatible with bikes - many light rail systems are designed to carry bikes, which extends the transit catchment area and effectiveness;
• cheap, in comparison to heavy rail or any highway option. This assumes that the light rail system is not underground or elevated, which are both more expensive options and can make accessibility to stations a problem (though in some circumstances, underground or elevated systems are the only solutions and can have the advantage of offering speeds that are more competitive with the car in heavily built up areas);
• attractive to development - light rail stations can act as magnets for urban development seeking a dependable transit service which enhances the appeal and livability of the local area. Light rail can thus help cities achieve the kind of nodal, concentrated form of development needed to foster less-auto-dependent environments that are more compatible with the emerging information age city;
• able to help green the city - many cities are building their light rail systems by simply reclaiming two traffic lanes for the light rail alignment and grassing the entire track bed (eg in Freiburg and Zurich). Light rail thus can help meet other parts of the sustainability agenda, such as creating more soft surfaces in cities (as discussed in chapter 5), and reducing the urban heat island.

Photo 1 Light rail 1 Green corridor with LRT tracks (Freiburg)

Back to the top

Improving transit: The bus/light rail debate

Despite light rail’s advantages and the huge uptake rate in many cities around the world, a major and sometimes bitter debate frequently occurs in auto-orientated, bus-only cities contemplating the use of light rail technology for the first time. This debate turns on whether a better bus system (achieved through busways), or a rail system, is the best, most cost-effective way to improve transit.

On the bus side, it is argued that buses are more appropriate for the less dense, less centralised urban form of automobile cities, that they have more flexibility to cater for passenger needs in low density environments, and are much cheaper. Part of this argument is that people do not like to transfer between modes, which is what often needs to happen in low density settings if people are to use a new light rail system (or any rail system). The argument is essentially, that for much lower investment, buses can achieve similar improvements in travel time and thus can be just as successful, if not more successful, than a light rail system.

But is this simple analysis really how competition between transit and the automobile works, and is it equal to the task of winning the wider sustainability argument and helping to build a more sustainable city?

The answer would appear to be no. Cities that have taken old tram systems out have found that the replacement bus services experience a big decline in patronage and many cities that have attempted to win car users with busways have failed. Even Ottawa, the most extensive busway city in the Western world, has had declining transit since it went for busways. In San Diego the data show that many people have left their cars to use the new LRT system, something which the previous bus system was not able to do despite busways, and something that most Californians thought could never happen. In the northern corridor, where a line-haul busway service operates and park and ride facilities are provided, the utilisation rates are around 50% that of the park-and-ride stations on the LRT lines. Mills (1989) states that:

"one-third of the people who ride our system each day come to it in their cars and park at the lots at our stations...surveys further show that most of those people, when asked how they would get to work if the light rail line did not exist, say they would drive the rest of the way." (p5)

The reality is that there are many factors which influence people’s mode choice. However, these rarely figure in the transportation planner’s models when it is predicted that a busway will be able to attract as many or more passengers as a new rail line. This is why there are so many cases now around the world where new rail lines outperform the buses they replace (eg see Case Study on Perth in 4.5.6), and are far more successful in patronage than any standard models are able to predict.

These other factors which favour rail over buses include:

• o greater comfort and convenience (both vehicles and station/stops), particularly because passengers are more likely to get a seat on light rail; availability of a seat substantially decreases the cost which passengers attach to travel time (Algers et al, 1975).
• better schedule reliability (Jessiman and Kocur, 1975)
• reliable transfers between modes - a number of authors show that modal transfers are nowhere near the negative factor which they have been made out to be, especially rail-to-rail or bus-to-rail, though bus-to-bus is not viewed favourably because of often poor reliability (Algers et al, 1975; Vuchic, 1981). People appear relatively happy to make a transfer which enables them to take advantage of what they see as a superior mode.
• greater inherent passenger appeal of the vehicles and stops, including width of aisles, smoothness, odor/engine noise, all-weather reliability and weather protection at stops, and other environmental factors (Tennyson, 1985).
• "The Sparks Effect" - increased passenger appeal of an electric system over diesel system, observed in all new rail electric systems. This is due to a combination of factors, but includes the inherently faster acceleration and deceleration of the electric drive system in electric trains. The sparks effect is so conclusive that it is frequently built into passenger estimates at around 20%.
• route understandability of LRT versus buses; LRT has tracks and substantial station stops which improves it legibility for patrons.
• the permanence of LRT lines versus the flexibility of buses. Vuchic (1989) states that:
  

  " a strong image and identity of rail transit caused by the simplicity of its services and permanence of its lines, represents a major element of passenger convenience. The strong recognition contributes greatly to the large passenger attracting ability of rail transit." (Vuchic, 1981)

• attraction of real estate development which can significantly alter the medium to long term picture of patronage potential and financial performance of transit (Henry, 1989). Paaswell and Berechman (1982) explain it this way:

  "Buses take people to where activities are and can follow the movement of activities over a wide geographic pattern. On a rapid transit line, there is a more active land use transportation relationship. Large numbers of people are concentrated at specific spots, and activities become linked to the stops. Transit induces changes in station areas thatoften would not occur if no transit were there."

One of the key reasons why transit is seen by developers as offering excellent land use opportunities is that it "conserves the use of prime real estate for greater commercial and economic activity, rather than for the storage of automobiles" (Elms, 1989, p113).

The induced land use effects of new rail systems are especially important but unfortunately "...professionally accepted ridership forecasting processes typically do not take them into account" (Henry, 1989, p175). On the contrary, busways and their associated bus stations tend to have a stigma attached to them in the minds of the development community. The factors which most discourage residential and commercial development around bus stations are insufficient speed and service, poorly understood routes and service and the image of a bus station as being noisy, polluted or with other environmental problems (Henry, 1989). A bus system is also perceived as representing a lower level of public commitment to transit and one whose permanence is not guaranteed because of the ease with which services can be altered or rerouted (Austin Planning and Growth Management Department, 1986).

The better potential of rail to attract development also provides the possibility for governments to participate in joint development and value capture opportunities (eg see Keefer, 1985; Cervero, Hall and Landis, 1992). These mechanisms are capable of yielding up-front capital contributions from the private sector for stations and other infrastructure, and ongoing non-fare revenue from leasing of air rights, property rents, station connection fees and other methods, as well as returning to the public purse some of the windfall gains that can accrue to the private sector from public investment in transit, such as the rezoning of adjacent land to higher value land uses.

Photo 2 Light rail 2 Joint development

The essential attractiveness of joint development and value capture opportunities is in their potential to provide a win-win situation. The benefits can work three ways:

• The transit authority/government gains in shared capital costs of new transit projects, additional non-fare operating revenue from leased lands and a more efficient transit operation with a higher fare box recovery ratio, especially higher off-peak and reverse direction patronage in peaks through high density centres along the lines. Local governments benefit from a higher tax base and revitalisation of the local area, including more local job opportunities.
• The developer/land owner gets a much higher value use from the land through density bonuses and rezoning advantages, easy accessibility for the development's workforce from all over the city and a guaranteed, captive clientele for businesses located around the station.
• The community gains in cheaper, quicker access to a wider range of employment opportunities, services and housing, much better standards of urban and environmental design around stations and vital focal points of convenient urban facilities for the local population. Far greater choice becomes possible for those with and without cars.

Back to the top

The role of buses

The importance of buses in a quality transit system should not be diminished by the above analysis which stresses the importance of a fixed rail spine. Buses have three significant roles:

1. As an inferior solution before a rail spine is built, buses can be run to fulfill the same line-haul function;
2. As a local distributor for flexible linkage systems to the line-haul route; and
3. An effective local service in areas of lower demand where there is little possibility or need for a rail service.

Where cities are preparing to reduce automobile dependence it is necessary to create a transit spine down each urban corridor and enable the planning system to focus around key nodes along it. Although buses will not do this as well as trains, a well-developed bus service operating like a rail system with direct and rapid services, will be a lot better than nothing, or than a bus service that is not developed with rail operating characteristics. In Perth a ‘circle route’ was developed to directly link several nodes of activity with a 15 minute service and limited stops. The success of the service was immediate with over 4000 passengers a day (the highest patronage of a bus route in Perth), suggesting that a ‘circle rail line’ should be planned for the next phase.

A second key role for buses is to link neighbourhoods into the line-haul routes. These can be community buses for particular groups or normal service buses. The use of low floor, accessible buses is occurring globally to enable people with disabilities to more easily use buses but they are appreciated by everyone (Vintila, 1996). Buses can also use new technology to introduce an element of demand-responsiveness as buses can now be tracked by global positioning satellites (GPS) so that electronic calls from bus stops can signal where and when the demand is required.

New technology, low floor, smaller, large picture-window buses are proving to be attractive in local areas as a friendly, flexible service. Some of these buses are electric. In many local areas, the likelihood of developing rail service to provide for these needs is remote. It is important in such areas to ensure that the bus service is developed with a high level of community input to ensure its effectiveness. It is also necessary in many instances to exploit creative funding arrangements such as partnerships between a local council and the regional transit provider (eg. the new Hop, Skip and Jump bus services in Boulder Colorado which have been a major success).

But urban areas still need cross-city connections which can bring people from these services to a line-haul rail system. Together, the flexible bus and the fast rail can compete effectively with the car.

Back to the top

Other factors in improving transit

Better transit systems are not just a matter of choosing the right transit technology for the right situation¹. Much more is involved such as:

1. Operation and service delivery issues, including:
   1. the reliability of timetables,
   2. the timing of connections between buses and trains,
   3. service frequencies, especially in the off-peak,
   4. whether buses are operated as a spider-web between major centres on a reliable, rhythmic, time-pulse transfer system, or whether they follow radial routes where passengers have to go through the city centre to change directions,
   5. availability of special night services and other factors.
2. Station, and bus stop environs, such as their cleanliness, weather protection, accessibility, security, lighting and general facilities such as telephones and trash cans.
3. The quality, comfort, age and security of transit vehicles, such as whether they are kept free from graffiti and vandalism, whether they are air-conditioned whether security systems are in place and so on.
4. The priority given to transit in traffic management policies,such as whether buses, trams and light rail vehicles are provided with protected rights-of-way and afforded full priority at traffic signals through a ‘green wave’.
5. Passenger information, marketing and public education, such as whether timetables, maps and other information are provided at every stop or whether the passenger is left to guess when the next service will arrive and where it will go, and whether the system is actively marketed and sold through innovative advertising campaigns and marketing strategies such as specialised destination maps for different trip purposes (entertainment, restaurants etc).
6. Ticketing systems, such as whether they are integrated between operators and modes and whether they are geared to establishing committed customers by way of 3, 6 or 12 monthly passes, or whether they are geared to the non-committed, one-off cash fare rider. Vast differences can be noted in the performance of transit systems under these different strategies (Laube, 1997). It is also possible to develop innovations such as that suggested by Professor Anthony Perl (1998, personal communication), where a city provides a ‘gold card’ for its transit system that also includes a proportion of cheap taxi rides for those times or destinations when and where transit services are too poor, or for emergencies. Such a ‘gold card’ could have a range of other privileges negotiated by the transit authority, as with airlines, and in corporate membership of a car sharing club (for weekend holiday trips outside the city), as is occurring in Europe. This would then provide the basis for car-free suburbs, which without the need for parking and heavy road requirements, would be far easier to design as human scale villages with ecological features².
7. Overall management and planning strategies, such as whether responsibility for the planning and service standards of the system is under a dedicated government authority such as the ‘verkehrsverbund’ in Germany and Switzerland, or is more fragmented and subject to the decisions of various private and government operators, and hence unintegrated and unreliable. This does not mean the services have to be operated by the government system, just that a system of regulations enables a truly integrated and reliable system to be provided.

Collectively, such issues have a big bearing on whether transit is perceived by the community as a service that can be depended upon. It is after all, attempting to overcome automobile dependence, which is the condition you are left with if the transit system is not dependable. Such a system must be for everyone at a high standard and not just the captive riders or poorer members of the community. Such a system ought to be something of which the city generally can be proud. If all these factors are being taken care of well and urban development is well-integrated with the transit system, then a city will generally experience relatively high transit ridership, even if it is very wealthy and can afford high car ownership (eg Zurich).

Cities moving towards this kind of commitment to their transit systems will be reducing their car dependence and building greater sustainability into their transportation systems.

Back to the top

Footnotes

1 More detail on this is provided in Newman and Kenworthy, 1999, Appendix 6.
2 For a summary of car-free housing in Europe, based on car sharing see Jan Scheurer "Car-free Housing in Europe: A New Approach to Sustainable Residential Development" on wwwistp@central.murdoch.edu.au in the Sustainability Planning Network section. Details on car-sharing schemes can be found on www.mobility.ch/links