Modern Trams, Light rail transit systems.pdf

Institute of Urban Transport (india)
www.iutindia.org
September, 2013
MODERN
TRAMS
(LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT)
For Cities in India

Title : Modern Trams (Light Rail Transit)-For Cities in India
Year : September 2013
Copyright : No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form by photo, photoprint, microfilm or any
other means without the written permission of FICCI and Institute of Urban Transport (India).
Disclaimer : "The information contained and the opinions expressed are with best intentions and without any
liability"

I N D E X
SUBJECT Page No.
S.No.
1. What is a Tramway (Light rail transit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Historical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3. Worldwide usage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Trams vsLRT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Features of LRT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Comparison with Metro rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Comparison with Bus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Comparison with BRT (Bus-way) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Issues in LRT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. A case for LRT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Integrated LRT and bus network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Relevance of LRT for India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
13. Kolkata tram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
14. Growth of Kolkata tram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
15. Kolkata tram after 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
16. Learning from Kolkata tram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
17. Present mass rapid transit services in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
18. Need for a medium capacity mass rapid transit mode in India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
19. Planning and design of LRT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
20. Aesthetics and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
21. Capex, Opex and Life cycle cost of alternative modes of MRT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22. Evolution of LRT model abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
23. LRT model for India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
24. Road Junctions & Signalling Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
25. System design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
26. Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
27. Project Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
28. Implementation via PPP or 'Government cum BOT' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
29. Construction Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
30. Potential for application of LRT in India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Tramways or light rail transit (LRT) is a medium capacity mode of mass rapid transport which
straddles between the heavy capacity Metro rail and the low capacity bus services. It is a form of
rail transit that utilizes equipment and infrastructure that is typically less massive than that used
for heavy rail modes i.e. commuter/regional, and metro rail/subway. A few modes such as people
movers and personal rapid transit could be considered as even "lighter". LRT may be at grade,
partially grade-separated or completely elevated.
The earliest form of LRT is the horse-drawn carriage. These were used in many cities around the
World. Initially the carriages ran on the roads. In due course, the carriages had steel wheels
running on steel rails to reduce friction.
The limitations of animal power were obvious. In the decade between 1880 and 1890, electrically-
powered trams became technically feasible following the invention of a trolley system of
collecting current. Trams became popular because roads were then poorly-surfaced. Before the
end of the 19th century electric trams had appeared around the world, in cities such as Kyoto,
Japan; Bangkok, Thailand; and Melbourne, Australia.
1. What is a Tramway (Light rail transit)
2. Historical background
MODERN TRAMS (LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT) For Cities in India 1 |

Melbourne Early trolley car in Newton, Massachusetts
Electric tram
LRT traces its pedigree to trams that started
operating more than 100 years ago. The
advent of the car pushed out trams and many
tram systems around the world had to be
closed due to financial difficulties. The Energy
crisis of the 1970s compelled cities to recall
the tram in an upgraded version i.e. the LRT.
The 'light rail transit' term was adopted in the
1970s in the United States, as a conscious
break from the "obsolescent" image of trams;
some cities however still prefer to call it
tramway.
MODERN TRAMS (LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT) For Cities in India
2 |

Worldwide data (2013) shows that LRT has been adoptedin 436 cities (includes 39 under
construction and 30 under planning). Some of the countries are; Algeria, Argentina, Armenia,
Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Korea South, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Romania,
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, United Arab
Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Viet Nam. (Reference web page http://www.lrta.org).
International experience of 436 LRT systems worldwide confirms that LRT is the most successful
medium capacity mode, with over 100 years of development behind it, yet incorporating the
latest technology for the future.
3. Worldwide usage
1. Trams is a mode as currently operating in Kolkata and possibly a few more cities around the
World. However most tram systems operating around the World are the upgraded version of
tram and designated asLRT. Salient differences between the old trams and the present LRT
are as follows:
(i) In the traditional tram, the tracks and trains run along the streets and share space with road
traffic. Stops tend to be very frequent and use roads as platform for the purpose. Because
road space is shared, the tracks are usually visually unobtrusive and paved in the road
surface.
(ii) In the case of LRT, the trains run along their own right-of-way and are often separated from
road traffic. Stops are generally less frequent, and the vehicles are boarded from a platform.
(iii) Between tram and LRT there is a significant overlap of technology. Many LRT systems have a
combination of the two, with both mixed and segregated right of way.
(iv) There is a significant difference in cost between tram and LRT. The traditional tram is often
less expensive by a factor of two or more. Despite the increased cost, modern tramway or
LRT is the current dominant form of urban rail transit development.
4. Trams vs LRT

LRT is a low cost, low axle load, eco-friendly, electrically propelled system with no local pollution
and low noise and vibrations. Light rail vehicles (LRV) generally have a top speed of around 100
km/h though mostly operating at much lower speeds, more akin to road vehicles. LRT features
include:
• Steel wheel vehicles operating on steel rails and are almost universally operated by
electricity delivered through overhead lines. Electric power provides greater
acceleration, making it suitable for operation with closely-spaced stations.
• Grooved steel rails laid flush with road surface or ballasted like normal railway track,
making light rail the only system which can operate on both city roads and jointly with
conventional rail services.
• Sharp road bends up to 25m radius, minimizing need for property acquisition and hence
ideal for urban environment.
• Steeper inclines than heavy rail
• Shares its operational space with other road vehicles (e.g. automobiles) and often runs
on, across or down the center of city roads.
• Grade separation only in exceptional circumstances.
5. Features of LRT
LRT differs from the Metro rail in that the train length is short, segregated right of way is not
essential, may have road level crossings, coaches can go round sharp bends and no signalling and
train control is essential. All these features limit the speed and the capacity of the LRT. When all
these constraints are removed, the LRT becomes akin to Metro rail. Indeed LRT is a flexible mode
that fits between the bus and the metro rail, and can behave like either of them. Additionally LRT,
in comparison with a metro rail, is cheaper to build and operate. Ability to go round sharp road
bends reduces the need to acquire roadside property and hence the project cost. Use of low axle
load of 11 tonnes compared to 17 tonnes of Metro rail saves operating cost.
6. Comparison with Metro rail
4 |

Delhi Metro rail
MODERN TRAMS (LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT) For Cities in India 5|
1. LRT can generally provide a high quality ride, and when segregated, regularity in service. Bus
systems though highly flexible perform less well in these respects. Additionally the buses
have a limitation of capacity, comfort, convenience and reliability of service. Most
importantly the 'image' of bus services as a rule is poor and hence to get the user of the car
and two-wheeler to shift to the use of the bus is not easy.
7. Comparison with Bus
OLD & NEW BUSES IN DELHI
2. LRT is capital intensive but cheaper than bus to operate for a given capacity at lower life-cycle
cost, a higher commercial speed, reduced pollution. The preparatory time is relatively long
and financing arrangements complex. Bus services, on the other hand, require much less
funds and can be introduced quite quickly and plays a major role in city transport even when
a popular rail transit mode operates in a city. While buses of various capacities may be used
in a city, conservative approach is necessary when it comes to using rail transit technology.

1. LRT is similar to BRT in that it requires a
share in the road space and will affect
traffic flow on the road both during and
after construction. BRT is of relatively
recent origin born out of the need to
discipline and to improve the
performance of bus services and to
provide mass rapid transport at low cost.
It is reported to be operational in about
150 cities around the World and many
more cities are in the process of
planning. LRT however scores over BRT in
terms of capacity and requirement of
road space.
8. Comparison with BRT (Bus-way)
6|
Boston LRT
Ahmedabad LRT A tram of the Luas system in Dublin, Ireland
1. A World Bank study (Reference; World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review –Mass Rapid
Transit in Developing Countries Final Report, 2000 Halcrow Fox in association with Traffic and
Transport Consultants (http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/transport/ ) has assessed that the
Bus-way (BRT) output depends greatly on road network configuration, junction spacing and
stop spacing. It typically has been demonstrated to be high at
• About 10,000 peak hour peak direction trips (phpdt) at 20 kmph on arterial corridors and
15-17 kmph on urban corridors for a 1-lane each way bus-way.

• If provision for bus overtaking at stops is provided, passenger throughputs of 20,000
phpdt have been demonstrated and
• 2-lanes each way schemes are reported with even higher passenger flows.
2. Thus the carrying capacity of BRT appears to vary within a wide range depending on the
design of BRT. In Indian cities very few roads will be able to provide space for overtaking
facility and much less for an additional lane. Therefore the capacity of BRT is unlikely to
exceed 10000 phpdt in most cases. This compares with the capacity of LRT which may go up
to 30000 phpdt without requiring by pass facility or additional road lanes.
3. Secondly as per the WB study LRT requires less road space (2-3 lanes) than BRT (3-4 lanes)
because overtaking facility is not needed and one island platform will suffice against two
platforms for BRT, one in each direction.
BRT – LANE REQUIREMENT AT BUS STOPSLRT- LANE REQUIERMENT AT STATIONS
4. No doubt BRT is low in initial cost compared to LRT, but the cost differential disappears when
I. the cost of buses and bus depots is included
II. the life cycle cost is calculated taking into account the higher capacity and longer life of
light rail vehicles compared to buses,
III. the fact that LRT needs less road space than a bus-way, is taken into account,
IV. the external benefits of fuel, land and energy conservation, low pollution and safety are
counted

V. the cost of dedicated infrastructure for LRT is not counted (Buses do not have to pay for
use of roads).
5. Recent reviews of BRT, however, show its inadequacy in terms of pollution and capacity as
per reports from the two most successful BRT systems i.e. in Bogota and Curitiba. It appears
pollution caused by BRT buses has become unbearable in Bogota. In Curitiba congestion on
the system has become a cause of concern. Plans to upgrade some BRT corridors to LRT have
reportedly been mooted.
1. Opposition to LRT has been mainly on 3 counts: first, that modern spatial arrangement
(urban sprawl) is unsuited for fixed-line transit systems such as LRT; second, that LRT is too
slow to compete with personal vehicles; car and 2-wheeler; and three, that LRT does not
generate sufficient return on capital investment.
2. All three issues will become a thing of the past with the emerging new thinking. The issue of
Urban sprawl as an urban growth policy is being reviewed and initiatives are being taken to
move towards compact cities. Secondly it will no longer be slower than personal vehicles
once LRT is segregated from road traffic, particularly when passing though congested areas.
These two features will help improve the viability of LRT.
9. Issues in LRT
8|
1. A modal choice survey by UITP in 1997 showed that an average 11% car drivers had
transferred to using LRT in 93% of the cities since the opening of the LRT. Another survey by
UITP showed that in 100% of the cities responding, customers rated LRT as being more
accessible than buses, 73% rated LRT as more reliable than buses. Specific figures for a few
cities are given hereunder.
2. In Nantes (France), where the first of the LRT was built (opened 1985, extended 1989 - 14.2
km with 30 stops), the use of public transport has accelerated, the increase in use of private
motor vehicles has moderated and the decrease in cycling has stopped. Between 1984
(before the tram) and 1995 the rider-ship of LRT + bus increased by 65.1%. 43% of the total
10. A case for LRT

18. When a bus is an integrated part of a transit network, its contribution is far more significant
than when operating as a solo service. Ottawa, with its wide use of BRT, has in the five years from
1991 to 1996 shown a ridership decline of 18% as against a population increase during this same
period of 8%. Calgary on the other hand, with a mixed tram and bus transport system, has
increased its patronage by 30% and identically increased its population by 8%. It has integrated its
system in such a way as to cultivate transfers and capture new riders. Transfers are a crucial
element of expanding transit under the present pattern of dispersed trip destinations.
11. A case for LRT
public transport journeys are now made on the LRT (33m journeys per year). 16% of LRT
users had never used the bus network before the LRT was built and 39% of LRT users had a
private vehicle which they could have used - they prefer the LRT to the car for certain
journeys. The main reasons for choosing the tram are its rapidity and accessibility to go to
work or to go shopping. (Source: UITP Light Rail Commission and Town Planning Agency of
Nantes area, 1998).
3. In Strasbourg (Germany) total publictransport rider-ship increased by 45% (1990 to 1997)
since the opening of the LRT, car use in the city center reduced by 17%. The evidence is that
LRT not only attracts passengers to itself but also, where there is good integration between
modes, increases rider-ship of the public transport system as a whole.
4. In Zurich, a city of around 300,000 population - a similar size to Coventry in UK - only 29% of
journeys are made by private car, whereas in Coventry the figure is more than 75%. Car
ownership rates are actually higher in Zurich than in Coventry, but people do not use them
for many of their urban journeys. Zurich has an integrated public transport system that
utilizes buses, trolley-buses, trams, light rail, commuter trains, funiculars and passenger
ferries in a dense and highly utilized network. Coventry has buses and one lightly used
commuter railway line with just two suburban stations and the city's main railway station
within the city boundaries. To all intents and purposes buses are the only mode of public
transport within the city boundaries.

The foregoing analysis shows that modern LRT even though not yet used in India (old trams
operate in Kolkata) deserves serious consideration for use as a mode of medium capacity mass
rapid transport. Before going further, it will be useful to review the Kolkata tram with regard to its
performance and usefulness.
12. Relevance of LRT for India
Zurich Essen, Germany.
Brentwood station, Calgary, Canada Essen, Germany.
10|
Tram was in use in India in several cities such as Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi, Patna, Kanpur, Chennai
and Nasik. The only surviving tram operates in Kolkata which is neither cared for nor is being
abandoned.
13. Kolkata tram

1. Kolkata Tram System was inaugurated in
1880 with Metre-gauge track, horse-
drawn from Sealdah to Armenian Ghat
via Bowbazar Street, Dalhousie Square
and Strand Road. However, steam
engines were gradually introduced and
by the end of the nineteenth century, the
company owned 166 tram cars, 1000
horses, seven steam locomotives and 19
miles of tram tracks.
2. Between 1900 and 1905, the electrification of the tram system and conversion to the
standard gauge was completed. The system continued to expand. In 1943 the Calcutta tram
was connected with Howrah station through the new Howrah Bridge. The total track length
was around 70 Km.
14. Growth of Kolkata tram
Horse-drawn tram
Kolkata Tram in 1920s Kolkata Tram in 1950s
3. In 1951, Government of West Bengal enacted
Calcutta Tramways Act of 1951 and in 1967, took
over the Company and assumed management. The
1970s and 1980s marked the shrinking of the tram
system, with the closure of Howrah section and
some other routes. Total track length was now
reduced to 61.2 km in the 1970s. The trend
continued in early 1980s as well. However, due to
absence of alternative modes, the utilisation of the
tram system continued.
Kolkata Trams in 1980s

Trams rolling out of a Calcutta Tramways
Company depot in Kolkata
Kolkata Tram
4. Gradually, most of the profitable routes in and near the city centre were discontinued due to
construction of Kolkata metro. However, the trend was reversed albeit temporarily in 1985-
87 when tram was extended connecting city centre to the core (BehalaJoka). Increasingly, the
tram was considered too slow for the city's streets and hence, the cause of traffic disruption.
This led to the suspension of trams during the peak seasons like Durga Puja, when demand
for transport would be high, denying the opportunity for ridership capture and increase in
revenues. Also single way operations were implemented in one-way streets, further reducing
ridership.
12 |
In 1992, CTC undertook a new venture by introducing bus services. The trend of shrinkage of Tram
network resumed in 2000's with more lines being closed for construction of Metro, rail, Flyovers,
and other development projects in the city. These routes have continued to be suspended, even
after construction works were completed. For many of the routes, the original terminals which
were the major traffic generating points were also cut off. In the period between 2005 and 2011,
the abandoned tram tracks were concretised. This step has increased the road space for the
private motorised vehicles by converting the dedicated Tram Right-of-Way into the carriage way.
This also led to the removal of barrier between the Tracks and road, which acted as the trams
stops. As a result, the tram users have been forced to board and alight from the trams in the
middle of moving traffic.
15. Kolkata tram after 1992

1. Kolkata tram service has deteriorated over the years both in quality and financially on
account of the misplaced view that it is a hindrance to the movement of road vehicles. No
wonder, Currently, CTC (agency which operates the Tram System in Kolkata) is facing financial
challenges. The operational efficiency of CTC (revenue from operations as a percentage of
total expenditure), is about 20%. Around 40% of the expenditure is met through Government
subsidy and the balance 40% is shown as deficit (Annual reports 2008-09 and 2009-10).
2. A reconnaissance survey by IUT team to study the tram operation and meetings with various
stakeholders, including Government officials, industry, professionals, NGOs and the tram
users showed that there is a widespread view that Kolkata Tram operations should not only
be continued but also upgraded. It was felt that the trams have the potential to play an
important role in the urban transport system of Kolkata. Also a view was expressed that
trams have a heritage value and is integral to the socio-cultural fabric and identity of the city;
most of the interviewees have fond memories of the tram system with which they have
grown. The review suggests that there is a future for upgraded trams in India.
Before concretization
Boarding/alighting stop for tram users
After Concretization
Tram users have to board/alight after
crossing traffic
16. Learning from Kolkata tram

14 |
1. Mass rapid transit in cities in India in the
past has been limited to suburban
services and buses. Indian Railway
suburban rail services started in 1928 in
Mumbai. This was followed by a similar
rail system in Chennai in 1931 and in
Kolkata in 1957 and a few other cities.
There has not been much investment in
the upgrade of these services. Recently,
however, considerable progress has been
made in the upgrade of the Mumbai
suburban rail services.
2. The first underground Metro rail of length 18 km started operating in Calcutta in 1984 and
later an 11 km elevated rapid transport system was commissioned in Chennai, as an
extension to its existing suburban rail system. Extensions to both systems are now under
construction.
3. Work on the third Metro rail project started in Delhi in 1998. First phase of 65 km was
completed in 2007. The second phase of the project of length about 125 km was completed
in 2010. Construction of 3rd phase is in progress. A small length of Metro rail in Bangaluru
started operating in 2012. Construction of Metro rail systems has started in 6 more cities i.e.
Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalaru, Kochi, Jaipur, Gurgaon and Mumbai. Many other cities such as
Lucknow, Nagpur, Pune, Ludhiana, Ahmedabad Metro, Bhopal Metro, Indore Metro and
Chandigarh are planning rail transit.
4. Standard bus services which are low capacity MRT modes (Up to 5000 phpdt) till recently
were limited to about 15 cities. After 2009 the number of cities operating bus services has
increased to 65 JNNURM cities when nearly 16000 buses were sanctioned. The enormous
gap between demand and supply of mass rapid transit is presently met by para-transit in the
form of three wheeler motorized tempo and manually driven cycle rickshaw which have
much lower capacity.
Mumbai suburban rail
17. Present mass rapid transit services in India

1. Metro rail can serve corridors with demand level more than 30000 phpdt and buses are good
for corridors with demand level upto 5000 phpdt. For demand below the range of 30000
phpdt, it would be uneconomic to introduce Metro rail. Metro rail requires flat curves
(necessitating property acquisition) and long ramps taking up much road space. Demand
level between 5000 to 30000 phpdt needs medium capacity modes. Three modes of MRT are
in use around the world in this category; BRT, LRT and Monorail. LRTand Bus rapid transitare
essentially at-grade modes. Monorail is an elevated mode suited in congested areas with
limited ROW and where at grade service cannot be introduced.
2. These three medium capacity modes i.e. BRT, LRT and Monorail however, have their own
application to specific situations and limitations in terms of capacity, but all three modes can
be a part of a citywide multimodal integrated system of MRT. This can be seen from the case
study of Delhi where a multimodal integrated MRT network has been planned with all four
modes, Metro rail, BRT, LRT and Monorail as shown in the table below. This excludes the
Metro rail corridors as planned by DMRC (Metro rail network however has undergone
changes since).
18. Need for a medium capacity mass rapid
transit mode in India
Modes Corridors Length
Metro rail 6 115 km*
At-grade BRT 26 294 km
LRT 6 47 km
Monorail 3 48 km
3. Delhi and Ahmedabad are presently
operating BRT services, 9 cities are at the
construction stage and 2 cities at the
planning stage. LRT though planned for
Delhi has not yet been introduced.
Monorail has been introduced in Mumbai
planned for Kozhikode and Delhi and
under consideration in Bangaluru,
Chennai and Trivandrum.
Monorail in Kaualalumpur
* Phase III is also in progress. For phase IV DPR preparation is in progress, after
implementation of phase IV, the total metro length will be more than 400 km.

1. A city has several corridors with demand ranging from a few hundred trips to several
thousand trips per hour that need to be served by MRT. Similarly, starting with a mini bus to
midi and maxi bus and finally guided and rail transit modes, the capacity of each mode
increases. Each MRT mode has a role and limitations. All corridors in a city do not need a high
cost, high capacity Metro rail. Similarly, a bus may not necessarily be able to meet the
demand on all corridors. This is illustrated by the table below taken from the actual planning
of the MRT network for Delhi.
19. Planning and design of LRT
Mode Length km Road width m Max. phpdt Design phpdt
BRT 118 35-45 9289 4500-9000
LRT 41 30-45 26408 13000-20000
Monorail 48 15-30 20780 3000-20000
Metro rail 170 >30 m 66135 48000
2. For an economic transport network, it is necessary that capacity of the chosen mode matches
the future projected demand level in a corridor. Over-provision in a corridor will be
uneconomic. Thus, alternative modes of mass rapid transit may be needed as appropriate to
each corridor. The number of modes for acity, however has to be rationalized to achieve
critical mass for each mode and to achieve economy of scale. Such a multi-modal system will
be least cost with best possible financial viability and hence affordability and sustainability.
This is important to ensure environmental sustainability and social sustainability as well as for
MRT to continue to grow with growth in demand.
3. The choice between the three medium capacity modes; LRT, Monorail and Bus rapid transit
depends on several factors.From consideration of commuter convenience at grade modes
should be preferred as climbing up and down, particularly for short trips is eliminated. At-
grade modes offer the best aesthetics as they do not interfere with the skyline or the privacy
of roadside premises. Thus at-grade BRT and LRT is the first choice for Commuter
Convenience, low initial cost, low operating cost and hence financial sustainability.
4. Between LRT and BRT, the choice depends on demand level and availability of road right of
way on a corridor. As stated earlier, the capacity of BRT is unlikely to exceed 10000 phpdt as a
rule. This compares with the capacity of LRT which may go up to 30000 phpdt without
16 |

requiring additional road lanes. Secondly as stated earlier LRT requires less road space (2-3
lanes) than BRT (3-4 lanes) because overtaking facility is not needed and one island platform
will suffice against two platforms for BRT, one in each direction.
5. In selecting from amongst the 4 more commonly used medium capacity modes i.e. LRT,
Monorail, Electric Trolley Bus (Similar to bus in capacity) and BRT, four factors have to be kept
in mind; safety, environment, energy and land conservation. LRT and Monorail help in all four
features and offer the best safety, minimum pollution, conservation of fossil fuel and
minimum land requirement; ETB helps with two features i.e. pollution and energy saving; bus
is the least favoured in respect of these four elements;
Mode Pollutioncontrol Fuelsaving Safety Land Conservation
LRT yes yes yes yes
Monorail yes yes yes yes
ETB yes yes - -
BRT (Bus) - - - -
6. At-grade modes may affect the safety of other road users. Buses (or ETB) operating in mixed
traffic conditions, as at present, can meander, being unguided, thereby creating a safety
hazard for other road users. At grade LRT is a guided mode of transport and cannot meander.
It therefore provides much better safety than the non-guided bus or ETB. The safety of Bus
operating in segregated lanes will perhaps lie somewhere in-between depending on the
design of the dedicated lanes. Grade separated modes do not affect the safety of other road
users.
At-grade modes offer the best aesthetics as they do not interfere with the skyline or the privacy of
roadside premises. Elevated modes affect the skyline. Monorail however, scores over elevated rail
transit in aesthetics due to the slim guide beam needed overhead. Monorail however is a totally
new technology, not yet available in the country. LRT technology is akin to railway technology and
is easily absorbable by the Industry in the country.
20. Aesthetics and Technology

18 |
2. For the sake of comparison, the tables below show the capex and opex of alternative modes
of MRT. These costs are based on a life cycle cost study undertaken by IUT and which is
available on IUT web site.
1. LRT has not yet been introduced in India, but it has been planned for Delhi; a mixture of at-
grade and elevated construction of length 47 km. The cost estimate is as follows;
21. Capex, Opex and Life cycle cost of
alternative modes of MRT
Description Cost % of Total
(INR in Crore at Cost
2007-08 price levels)
Delhi LRT Capital Estimates
Preparatory Expenses 10 0.25
Land Government 628 16.65
Land Private 28 0.76
Fixed Infrastructure Civil 442 11.72
Fixed Infrastructure Electrical Systems 300 7.94
Fixed Infrastructure - Depot & OCC 483 12.78
Rolling Stock 1456 28.55
Signaling, Telecom & AFC 84 2.23
Taxes & Duties 345 9.12
Total 3776 100
CAPEX AND O&M COST OF MRT MODES
S no. Mode Capex O&M Rs. SOURCE
Rscrores Crore per
per Route km
Route km per annum
(2011-12)
1 Metro rail 182.05 8.8 (2016-17) CAPEX DMRC, Hyderabad and Kochi
(elevated) O&M time series of DMRC.
2 Monorail 214.27 7.2 (2016-17) CAPEX Kozhikode, Delhi and Mumbai
(elevated) O&M first year of Kozhikode

It will be seen that while capex in Monorail is the highest, Capexis lowest for BRT and bus service.
Between Metro rail and LRT, the latter is less expensive both in capex and opex (Of course offers
less capacity as well). The combined effect of capex and opex i.e. the life cycle cost is shown in the
table below.
Life cycle cost of modes of MRT
The LCC of various modes has been calculated at different PHPDT levels i.e. demand or usage
levels. The result is summarized in the table below. It has been assumed that the capacity of the
modes is not a limitation.
S no. Mode Capex O&M Rs. SOURCE
Rscrores Crore per
per Route km
Route km per annum
(2011-12)
3 Light rail 159.25 6.05 (2016-17) CAPEX Delhi LRT escalated to 2012-13
(elevated) O&M based on Elevated Monorail
4 Light rail 107.36 6.5 (2016-17) CAPEX Delhi LRT escalated to 2012-13
(At grade) O&M based on Monorail
5 BRT 27.38 14.9 (2014-15) CAPEX Ahmedabad, Rajkot
(At grade) (Incl. bus) O&M DTC, BEST, BMTC, MTC + OCC,
Security
th
6 BUS 17.67 16.3 (2014-15) CAPEX as per WGUT for 12 Five Year
(At grade) (Incl. bus) Plan.
O&M Cost Data for DTC, BEST, BMTC,
MTC
PHPDT Metro Monorail LRTS LRTS BRTS Buses
Rail (Elevated) (At-Grade)
3000 80.80 69.45 73.10 39.42 41.27 17.75
5000 56.94 49.24 49.32 27.59 31.81 17.78
7000 45.03 39.32 38.34 22.83 27.81 17.51
10000 36.12 32.77 28.92 18.26 24.59 17.36
12000 31.88 29.47 25.74 16.63 23.40 17.29
15000 27.98 26.93 21.86 14.91 22.17 17.30
20000 23.14 24.05 18.85 13.31 21.01 17.22

As evident from the above table, LRTS (At grade) remains the cheapest mode at various levels of
demand. In all cases, LCC reduces substantially as the PHPDT i.e. demand increases except in the
case of the buses. Furthermore, in terms of life cycle cost, elevated LRTS also becomes cheaper
than BRTS above 15,000 PHPDT.
The table further illustrates that elevated LRTS is cheaper than Metro rail at all PHPDT levels i.e.
demand levels. Between Metro rail and Monorail, the table shows that monorail is cheaper than
Metro rail up to 15000 PHPDT. However Metro rail is cheaper than Monorail above 15000 PHPDT.
A comparison between Metro rail and Monorail is irrelevant because monorail is a medium
capacity mode and also as Monorail is recommended for special locations where the road right of
way is limited and elevated Metro rail or elevated LRTS will be unsuitable for environmental
reasons.
20 |
1. LRT model in the developed countries
has evolved over the years. This has
been led by the realization that public
transport must become the mode of
c h o i c e f o r c o m m u t e r s f r o m
considerations of energy conservation
and protection of environment. This will
be so if the service is convenient for the
commuter. Hence priority to public
transport is considered essential. To
achieve this if necessary all other traffic
on a street is stopped if the street is
22. Kolkata tram after 1992
Low floor LRV
PHPDT Metro Monorail LRTS LRTS BRTS Buses
Rail (Elevated) (At-Grade)
25000 19.97 22.33 16.76 12.30 20.21 17.24
30000 18.39 21.14 15.37 11.64 19.75 17.19
35000 16.89 20.34 14.33 11.20 19.37 17.19
40000 16.05 19.74 13.60 10.88 19.14 17.16
45000 15.39 19.29 13.04 10.62 18.92 17.18
50000 14.67 18.91 12.59 10.39 18.77 17.19

1. Conditions in India are very different. Some of the differences are;
• Demand level in Indian cities is far greater than in the developed countries.
• Congested roads; mixed traffic, slow and fast, largely indisciplined
• ROW of roads in general in India is rather limited
• Jay walking to cross the road is quite common
2. The western LRT model has to be suitably modified to suit Indian conditions. There is a
realization in India that public transport needs to be promoted, but when it comes to giving it
priority, the planners feel shy. There is a resistance to give public transport dedicated lanes
and preferential signaling at road intersections to make the service fast.The European model
of at-grade LRT is unlikely to succeed in India considering that road users in developed
countries are too few and much more disciplined. It is however important that PT remains
attractive and in that context speed of travel is important. Therefore if physically segregated
lanes cannot be provided for LRT, it should be elevated where necessary, if not all the way. It
will add to road space.
3. Hence the first modification that may be necessary if demand level is high and road is narrow
is that LRT is elevated. Once this modification to western model of LRT is accepted, the need
for the expensive low floor LRVs is eliminated.Elevated, LRVs can be with normal floor level
and platforms can be provided at the normal height for commuters to board and de-board at
level. Elevated LRT will not require fencing which otherwise is found essential in Indian
conditions to control 'jay waking'.
23. LRT model for India
narrow. Accordingly LRT as a rule operates at-grade. This was easy since road right of way in
developed countries is mostly high since the roads were designed with car use in mind.
2. Originally trams operated mixed with road traffic. This limited the speed of the tram to that
of road traffic. With a view to improve the speed and to make the LRT more attractive it was
made to operate in dedicated lanes with preferential signaling at road intersections. The
other main feature in this direction is the extra low floor (200mm) vehicles. The commuter
has just one step to take to board and de-board. In some case even low platforms have been
provided for level board and de-board.

4. When LRT is at-grade i.e. at road
level within a dedicated corridor
width of 3.3m on each side of the
median of the road requiring a total
ROW for LRT of about 8.2m of the
road between stations. Additional
road space is required at stations.
Stations are provided with access
control through turnstiles. Stations
may be located as near to the road
junctions as feasible so that the
entry and exit of passengers from
the stations is through the existing
zebra crossings. However, some
stations may have to be provided at
mid-sections with new signalled
Zebra crossings.
22 |
Practice Worldwide is, LRT gets preferential signaling at road intersections. Three levels of priority
are adopted depending on pattern of traffic; immediate priority, priority once the minimum green
time of the current active phase is reached; priority once the current stage active is finished. The
time for which the priority signaling will be 'ON', will be the time required for the train to cross
the junction i.e. few seconds. For example in the case of Delhi LRT project out of 38 signalized
intersections, 5 have been accorded priority 1, 25, priority 2 and balance 8, priority 3. Grade
separation has been proposed at three intersections.
24. Learning from Kolkata tram
The system design will include definition of: arrangement of Power Supply, Overhead traction
equipment, Automatic Fare Collection system, preferential signalling for LRT, Articulated Rolling
Stock for negotiation of sharp curves (each about 40m long), Depot & Workshop requirements
25. System design

1. The financing strategy has to be based on all possible sources of funding and methods to
capitalize on them. The main source of revenue is user charges. The level of affordability of a
large section of society and political considerations do not permit full cost recovery through
user charges. The other key funding sources are Government Budgetary Support, tax
concessions and dedicated levies, land monetization, recovery from non-user beneficiaries,
debt and private investments. Support from Government is linked with the Nation's budget,
hence unpredictable and mostly inadequate. The paradigm of financing has to clearly move
towards non-users beneficiaries and the polluters pay principle.
2. It appears that Central and State taxes constitute up to 15% of the cost in rail transit projects
and up to 19 % in the case of buses. Thus tax concessions will off-set a substantial part of the
project cost. Dedicated levies can be levied on non-user beneficiaries mainly property and
users of private modes. The value created in the proximity zones can be recovered through
land monetization; i.e. a 'Betterment Levy' or 'Land Value Tax' or enhanced property tax or
grant of development rights. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) will help make MRT viable
and attractive. With increasing limitations on Government funding, private sector is being
involved. Both the Government and the private partner contribute equity and raise debt for
the balance amount. Bilateral soft loans can be tapped and funding from multi-lateral
agencies should not be ruled out.
26. Financing
and Track structure. One centralized maintenance and overhaul Depot for Rolling Stock, Signalling,
Communication & other equipment is required. Operation Control Centre (OCC), training facilities
are also part of Depot. Approximately 30 hectare of land is required for the Depot.
1. Three main project development stages are involved;Pre-feasibility stage, Techno-economic
feasibility stage, and Detailed project report.
2. The Pre-feasibility stage is required to establish a prima facie case for a project. If the project
is found to be necessary and feasible, a Techno-economic feasibility study is done to define
the project outline for administrative approval to proceed further with the preparation of the
27. Project Development Process

24 |
28. Implementation via PPP or 'Government
cum BOT'
1. LRT Project development involves four major steps;
• Transaction structuring and selection of the PPP partner,
• Final location survey and general arrangement/layout drawings,
• Choice of mode, choice of technology in that mode and system design, and
• Design of civil engineering structures.
2. The first part is essential to follow the PPP approach. The second part is equally essential
because of the complexity and time consuming nature of the activity and the involvement of
nearly all city agencies. This cannot be left to be resolved after the concession agreement has
been signed to avoid the resulting time and cost overruns during construction.
3. Choice of mode affects the city image and the city should have a say in this. Choice of
technology affects the ongoing maintenance needs and cost and hence is a matter of concern
for the city. It is therefore essential that the mode and technology are specified by the city.
4. If however these two aspects are left open and the PPP bidders are given the freedom to
offer their own mode and technology, it will amount to leaving the choice for these two
features for the city, for all times to come, to the winner of the first round of bidding. For
economies of scale the future corridors in the city will have to adopt the same mode and
technology. City should not allow the choice of these two important features to the chance
winner of the first bid process.
DPR. The Detailed project report defines the project fully and provides a detailed cost
estimate along with its financial profile and a financing plan for project sanction. The precise
alignment and station locations etc. are fixed during this stage. All three stages involve similar
investigations. The difference is in the depth of the study. As the project development
progresses the accuracy level is improved.
3. The content of the DPR depends on the project implementation strategy. Three strategies can
be considered i.e. PPP, Government through SPV and Government cum BOT. If the project is
to be funded by the Government, then the DPR has to fully define the project before inviting
bids for construction.

1. LRT is similar to BRT in that it requires a share in the road space and just like BRT will affect
traffic flow on the road both during and after construction. Some of the problems/criticism
faced by the BRT corridor under construction/operation are related to:
(i) Traffic management during construction including temporary signage
(ii) Utility diversions particularly Underground utilities
(iii) Cutting of trees
(iv) Facilities for Pedestrian crossing
(v) Traffic signal planning, installation and phasing
(vi) Planning and providing additional alternative routes for MV traffic
(vii) Planning for parking of vehicles of residents along the corridor
29. Construction Planning
5. The three implementation strategies are compared in the following table in respect of;
• Equity contribution and debt liability
• Sharing of revenue risk
• Management and
• Time needed to start ground activity
Comparison of Implementation Strategies
ITEM PPP Govt./SPV Govt. & BOT
Equity Shared 100% Govt. funds infrastructure Rolling
Stock and O&M is offered on BOT
Debt liability Shared Govt. Only NIL
Revenue Risk Shared Govt. Only NIL
Management Private Govt. Government : Construction and Project
Management; Bot Operator: Rolling
Stock, Systems integration and O&M
Time to start of 24 Months 18 Months 11 Months
Ground Activity

1. LRT has become a common fixture in many cities around the World over the past several
decades. Cities with well-established rail transit systems have significantly higher per capita
transit rider-ship, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, less traffic
congestion, lower traffic death rates and lower consumer transportation expenditures than
otherwise comparable cities.
2. Proponents of LRT argue that rail transit increases community well-being by creating jobs,
boosting economic development and property values, and reducing pollution and traffic
congestion--all while providing drivers with an economical alternative to the personal vehicle.
Opponents counter that LRT provides little of these benefits to citizens and that, even if some
benefits are realized, the costs still outweigh any potential benefits to society. Even though
opponents continue to oppose, urban rail systems are being opened and expanded at a rapid
pace.
3. Most Indian cities are low rise urban sprawls and require medium capacity modes only. As
per the recommendations of the working group on urban transport for the 12th FYP, LRT
should be provided in all cities with a population of million plus. There are 53 cities in this
category as per the 2011 census. Thus all these cities are candidates for introduction of LRT.
In large cities, LRT will be a part of the citywide multimodal MRT network. In other cities, LRT
may be the main mode of MRT.
4. In the existing city corridors, if necessary, LRT can be elevated. In new townships and urban
extensions however, space should be left in the middle of the road for introduction of at-
grade LRT at appropriate stage. LRT has use at special locations such as the TajMahal in Agra
and Victoria Memorial in Kolkata to protect them against pollution and to promote tourism.
30. Potential for application of LRT in India
(viii) Delays to the movement of motor vehicle traffic, after construction particularly at
the road junctions
(ix) Public awareness, Lack of lane discipline and education.
(x) Supply of Rolling Stock is on critical path.
2. It is therefore important that all these problems are designed out before taking up
construction of LRT. Problems on account of Item (v) in the case of LRT should be minimal as
unlike buses there is no need for LRT to turn left or right. Secondly, LRT trains will come at 3-5
minute intervals, get preferential signalling and cross the road junction in 20 seconds without
much impact on other traffic. Items (vi)–(ix) have not been detailed during project planning
and hence need attention. Items (i)–(iv) however cannot be planned in detail until the precise
alignment and location of stations has been fixed.
26 |

About FICCI
Established in 1927, FICCI is the largest and oldest apex business organisation in India. Its history is closely interwoven with India's struggle
for independence, its industrialization, and its emergence as one of the most rapidly growing global economies. FICCI has contributed to this
historical process by encouraging debate, articulating the private sector's views and influencing policy.
A non-government, not-for-profit organisation, FICCI is the voice of India's business and industry.
FICCI draws its membership from the corporate sector, both private and public, including SMEs and MNCs; FICCI enjoys an indirect
membership of over 2,50,000 companies from various regional chambers of commerce.
FICCI provides a platform for sector specific consensus building and networking and as the first port of call for Indian industry and the
international business community.
To be the thought leader for industry, its voice for policy change and its guardian for effective implementation.
To carry forward our initiatives in support of rapid, inclusive and sustainable growth that encompass health, education, livelihood,
governance and skill development.
To enhance efficiency and global competitiveness of Indian industry and to expand business opportunities both in domestic and foreign
markets through a range of specialised services and global linkages.
Our Vision
Our Mission
The Institute
The Institute of Urban Transport India (IUT) was established in May, 1997 as a professional body under the purview of the Ministry of Urban
Development Government of India (MOUD) as a premier professional non-profit making organization and registered under the Societies
Registration Act. The aim and objective of the Institute is to promote, encourage and coordinate the state of the art of urban transport
including planning, development, operation, education, research and management.
The membership of the Institute comprises Academicians, Architects, Economists, Engineers, Transport Planners, Town Planners and
professionals from various disciplines The Institute has more than 60 institutional members, 1300 individual members and 70 Associate
Members. It has association with foreign organizations such LTA Singapore, GIZ, UITP etc. IUT also has interaction with foreign cities. It hosted
a delegation from Shanghai and recently from Taiwan.
The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, is the ex-officio President of the Institute. Its Governing Council has
members from various premier organizations connected with Urban Transport and State Governments. The Institute has Chapters at
Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai, and Roorkee.
About Institute of Urban Transport (India)

FICCI
W: ficci@ficci.com
Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi 110001
T: 91-11-23738760-70
F: 91-11-23320714, 23721504

Modern Trams, Light rail transit systems.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Modern Trams, Light rail transit systems.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Modern Trams, Light rail transit systems.pdf