您的瀏覽器不支援JavaScript語法,但是並不影響網站的內容
Flash:LRT
Preface Objective Development Plan Project Content Download Planning Document Schedule of Request Benefits Investment Inritation Forum 3D Simulation 3D Simulation Evolution of LRT Light Rail in the World Contact Us English中文 KMRT TEL:07-3373719 FAX:07-3314366  


•••Evolution of LRTLRT vs BRTLight Rail in the World•••


LRT DESIGNS IN EARY STAGES

The LRT system designs in early stages were based on a simple and agile idea, the systems were installed on road, with a very simple style vehicle.

早期輕軌圖片1  早期輕軌圖片1
早期輕軌圖片2  早期輕軌圖片3


LRT DESIGNS IN THE 1970s

The intent of LRT designs in the 1970s was to solve transit problems in cities via light rail. At that time, Platform Floors were low but the floors of the railcars were hight, This made it inconvenient and sometimes even impossible for handicapped passengers to board

80年代的輕軌照片1  80年代的輕軌照片1
San Diego – USA

LRT DESIGNS IN THE 1990s

LRT Designs were greatly improved in the early 1990s. The platforms and stops were integrated to facilitate boarding by passengers

90年代的輕軌照片1  90年代的輕軌照片1
St. Louis-USA


LRT DESIGNS IN THE 21st CENTURY

The high-capacity modern LRT with its low-floor platform and railcar design is an ergonomic, comfortable and environmental friendly vehicle.

簡易月台 車輛低底盤、低月台
Simple Platform Low-Floor Railcar and Platform
上下車輕便、安全 老幼、婦孺、殘障者上下車無障礙
Easy and Safe for Boarding Convenient Access for Disabled Passengers
融入大自然的輕軌 結合市區景觀的輕軌
Environmental Friendly Integrated Easily with City Views
綠蔭盎然的輕軌 走入市區、人群的輕軌
The Green LRT Harmonize with Urban Life
美國新澤西1 美國新澤西2
New Jersey - USA


Both of them are flexible systems. When comparing two systems, it was common to neglect their consistencies in evaluation, for example the comparison of the advanced LRT systems that have exclusive right-of-way with the BRT system that have to obey the signal-control. It will generate the wrong image that BRT will have fewer impacts than LRT. Actually they are totally difference in competitive levels. To drive Kaoshiung to be recognized as the leading public transportation development city, the introduction of good service quality, competitive, adaptive to local situation and low pollution transportation vehicles, will be the up most requirements in system selections.

Therefore, under the circumstances describe below, we will discuss the difference between LRT and BRT.

1. Comfortable

Have you ever experienced taking Taipei MRT? Is there any different feeling when taking Ban-Nan line (steel tracks and steel wheels) and Mu-Zha line (rubber-tired system)? The comfortable of Mu-Zha line is far from Ban-Nan line, but it doesn’t mean that Mu-Zha line has bad construction quality. The ease of Mu-Zha line is the ease of its system. Since the pavement for rubber tires is related to civil engineering, and the precision is expressed in cm. On the contrary, the steel tracks and steel wheels railway system, belongs to the scope of mechanical engineering, and the precision is expressed in mm. In other hand, the effect of seismic isolation/reduction of BRT's suspension system is lower than mass rapid system. Furthermore, it is commonly believe in worldwide that BRT is less comfortable than mass rapid system. The LRT system is the high quality and easefulness public transportation system.

2. Impact to the Metropolis

The LRT car is 30 m long, can carry 250 persons, and operates in multi-articulated. The BRT is 18m long, can carry 150 passengers, and operates in single car. The traffic flow analysis of Kaoshiung loop line LRT shows the rush hour demand for each direction is approximately 5000 persons/hour. By double-articulated cars, the service frequency of each direction is about 6 minutes (10 cars in 1 hour), and averagely one car will pass the cross roads in each 3 minutes. With BRT, the service frequency of each direction is 1.8 minutes (34 cars in 1 hour), and averagely one car will pass the intersection in each 0.9 minute.

Table 1. The impact of LRT and BRT to cross roads, under the condition of 5000 persons / hour during the rush hour

 

Capacity

No. of car per hour
per direction

Service frequency per direction
(minutes)

Average time for one car to pass cross road
(minutes)

LRT

500 passengers

10

6

3

BRT

150 passengers

34

1.8

0.9

 

Under the condition of providing the same capacity with priority at traffic signal control system, since one BRT car will pass the cross roads for each 0.9, undoubtedly it causes serious traffic problem. Consequently, canceling the priority used on signal control and reducing operation speed, but it may lower the competitiveness of BRT and becomes a non-competitive public transportation system.

Therefore, the LRT system can solely satisfy the transportation demand of metropolis area, and provide the smooth running traffic

3. Environmental concern (noise and air pollution)

To compare with BRT that have intense service frequencies and loud sounds, the friction of pantographs and wheels rolling of LRT, as well as its motor driving systems will generate very low noise.

Furthermore, no matter gasoline or diesel fuel system, the BRT cars emit fumes that harm to environment. On the contrary, the electrical LRT emit no exhaust fumes, so it is non-polluting.

4. Operation

According to the statistics of Federal Transit Administration, the operating and maintenance cost of LRT for these recent years, is lower than BRT as the salary of drivers share 40-50% of the cost, indicates that LRT is the optimum choice to lower the operation cost of transportation.

5. Tendency of railway transportation.

According to the statistics of Federal Transit Administration, the growth tendency of LRT during 1996-2004 is: 8 new operation units (Table 2), revenue miles add 97% (able 3), passenger trips add 40% in numbers (Table 4).

These data indicate that in the developed countries show the positive trends of the growth of LRT development, its acceptance, as well as its riderships. It is the confirmation that the suggested LRT systems might be the fittest one.

Table 2 The increasing numbers of light rail operation units in USA.

Table 3: The growth tendency of revenue miles in USA’s LRT

Table 4: The tendency of passenger trips of USA’s railways transportation.

BRT vs LRT
To link to heavy rapid transit, to constitute the public transportation network, performing as a supplement, not as supplant. The type of system used will be designed due to the demand of passenger carrying capacities

Transit mode
BRT
LRT
System design
Right-of-way requirements
Mainly some shared right-of-way (street track), may develop to exclusive right-of-way, may be a mix of uses for some situations. Predominantly exclusive right-of-way (elevated) or some shared right-of-way (at-grade), or a mix of uses for some situations.
Supports
Rubber tires + roadway
Steel wheels + steel tracks
Pilot
Driver, pilot wheel
Driver
Vehicle propulsion
Internal combustion engine or electric
Electric
Car control
Visual
Visual / sign control
Train length
1 car
1-4 cars (articulated)
Operating
feature
Station spacing
200-600
400-700
Line capacity
(hour/direction)
2,000-30,000 passengers
6,000-30,000 passengers
Construction cost of civil works
(per km)
At-grade NT$ 35 million
Elevated NT$ 400 million
Elevated NT$ 500 million
At-grade ballast track bed NT$ 50 million
At-grade concrete track bed NT$ 10 million
Cost of station (per stop)
( 座 )
NT$ 0.8 million
Elevated NT$ 100 million
Surface bus stop NT$ 3.5 million
Underground NT$ 500 million
Cost of vehicle
(per car)
Traditional bus $4 million, articulated bus $5-12 million
(car capacity 70-160 persons)
$80 million
(car capacity 250 persons)
Operating & maintenance cost
(per km)
NT$ 45~50( traditional bus)
NT$ 110~130
Construction time
(per 10km)
<18 months
Approximately 2 years
Comfort
Bad
Good

 

Items

BRT

LRT

Comfort

Low

High

Vehicle capacity(per car)

Low
(160 passengers )
Hight
(500 passengers)

Impact to traffic (on same carrying capacity)

High (due to frequent service)

Low

Operating cost

Per revenue miles

Low

High

Per passenger

High

Low

Construction cost

Low

High

Environmental friendly

Low

High

Notes: Both systems use the exclusive right-of-way and signal priority.


》USA
New Orlean - USA
>Europe
Valension - France Amsterdam - Holland Brussels - Belgium
Strasbourg - France Strasbourg - France Strasbourg - France
Strasbourg - France Strasbourg - France Strasbourg - France
   
Strasbourg - France    
     
>Japan-Asia    
LRV for Kumamoto Interior of LRV for Kumamoto Low-floor railcar of LRV for Kumamoto
Momo LRV for Okayama Momo LRV for Okayama Interior of Momo LRV for Okayama
Low-floor railcar for Okayama MOMO Green Mover LRV for Hiroshima Green Mover LRV for Hiroshima
   
Interior of Green Mover LRV for Hiroshima