POTENTIAL OF LIGHT RAIL IN

ABHISHEK HALDAR CONTENTS 1 • BACKGROUND LITERATURE • EVOLUTION OF LRTS • WHAT IS LRTS? • CHARACTERISTICS OF LRTS • NEED OF STUDY • RESEARCH QUESTION & OBJECTIVES • METHODOLOGY • SCOPE & LIMITATION Houston LRT, Source: Lightrailnow.org • DECLINE OF IN INDIA • SUCCESS PARAMETERS AND ENABLING FACTORS – LITERATURE • INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES • SUCCESS PARAMETERS AND ENABLING FACTORS – ANALYSIS • POTENTIAL IN INDIAN CITIES Barcelona LRT, Source: railforthevalley.wordpress.com BACKGROUND LITERATURE EVOLUTION OF LRTS 2 Source: Urban Transit Systems and Technology, Vukan R. Vuchic The Revolution in Light Rail, Michael Barry http://www.princeton.edu/~alaink/Orf467F13/Orf467F13_Evolution_of_ Transport_Technology_2013 LONDONBERLIN HANNOVER FRANCE NEW YORK • Trams / streetcar are rail based vehicles, running on street competing with other mixed traffic, for urban public transportation. Mostly operated for intra city services. • Rising problems of motor vehicles lead to their re-introduction as Light rail (American) / Modern (Europe) with better operational and service characteristics to compete with the services provided by privateHorse vehicle.drawn tramways / street railway vs Electric Horse drawn omnibus streetcar + In 1798, horse + In 1832, horse drawn street railway in + Vehicle size upgraded to 4 axle, 16 + Era of coaches 160 drawn omnibuses New York; lower friction by rail mts long by 1920. + In 1694, 700 140 In 1850s, grooved rails introduced in coaches licensed start in London; + + 1930s, increasing popularity in private 120 North America. in London higher cap. ~ 14 vehicles and buses. World War led to pass. 100 + Europe’s strict regulation hindered major development of motors + Only for inter 80 unconstrained development. city trips. + First time used in vehicles. intra city60 trips in + North America’s unconstrained + Most cities close down tram /

Montbrison,40 development led tramways to grow streetcar by 1950s-1960s. France.Registrations Automobile over 4000 km. Oil crisis in 1973. 20 + + In 1881, electric streetcar in Berlin. Source:+ In 1975, first LRTS opens in Hannover. 0 17 th Century 18th Century 19th Century1970 1980 1990 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Source: http://www.doubledecker-bus.com/wp-content20th Century T he_last_of_the_Horse_Drawn_Carriages.JPG/uploads /2009 /11 /Horse -Drawn -Omnibus.jpg BACKGROUND LITERATURE WHAT IS LRTS? 3

• A rail based urban transportation system. • A mode utilizing predominantly ROW B, sometimes A • Flexible and can travel around sharp curves , on steep and exceptionally C category. Category A & B generally gradients and along streets . amount to 70% to 90% of the total network. • Electric traction with overhead current collection. • Can operate as two to four car trains . • A simple system with barrier less fare system , simple stops • Track crossings of street have priority in signal control. and one person driven vehicles. • Uses modern high capacity vehicles which are lighter than • Stops/stations are separated from the roadway , and heavy rail . These can be articulated and are skirted for have passenger protection, amenities and information . • streetLight rail running. transit system, which has evolved from trams, acts as a transitory• Vehicles system have frommultiple a normal doorstransit to low a rapid floors transit or high • Principallysystem. reserved running in cases of street running . platforms for quick exchange . • ThereWhile it can may be runsegregated with mixed high traffic speed for runningcertain porthroughtions of the its network, majority of its network is segregated to provide a faster service. Other service characteristics of light rail transit system• likeHigh high quality frequency, ROW, forhigh possible reliabilityconversion and quick to transfers automated suburbs. guideway . set it apart from the trams / streetcar system. • With further connectivitySource: Theinto Revolution suburbs, in Lightit can Rail, be Michael converted Barry to a full scale segregatedSource: Urban system. Transit Systems and Technology, Vukan R. Vuchic

Light rail transit is a mode of urban transportation that uses Light rail is a rail borne form of transport which can be predominantly reserved, but not necessarily grade-separated, developed in stages from a modern tramway to a form of right of way. Electrically propelled rail vehicles operate singly transport operating underground or on viaducts. Each stage or in trains. Light rail transit provides a wide range of of development can be the final stage, but should permit passenger capacities and performance characteristics at further development to the next higher stage . moderate costs . Source: Light Rail Transit Committee, Source: First report of Light Rail Commission, UITP Transportation Research Board BACKGROUND LITERATURE CHARACTERISTICS OF LRTS 4 Minimum operating units 1 (4 - 10 axle) Minimum radius of curvature (m) 20 Maximum no. of cars 2 - 4 (6 - 8 axle) Maximum gradient (%) 15 Vehicle length (m) 14-54 ROW (m) 12.5 Floor height Low (350 mm) / high Acceleration (m/sec 2) 1 Vehicle capacity 25-80 Deceleration (m/sec 2) 1.3 Design Characteristics Design Vehicle Characteristics Vehicle Vehicle capacity (seating+standing) 110-350 Emergency braking (m/sec2) 3

Exclusive ROW (%) 40-90 Maximum operating speed (km/hr) 60 - 120 Lane width (m): one way 3.3 - 3.65 Normal Operating speed (km/hr) 18 - 50 Fare collection On board / Off board Capacity (persons/hr) 6,000 - 20,000 Gauge (mm) 1435 Typical route length (km) 10 - 40 At grade / Elevated / Segregation Capital costs (Rs. Cr/ km.) 50 - 150 Underground

Fixed Facilities Fixed Good CBD Power supply Overhead Network and area coverage coverage & major Operation Characteristics Operation nodes

Station spacing (m) 300-1,600 Line length (km) 10 - 90

Source: Urban Transit Systems and Technology, Vukan R. Vuchic ; The Revolution in Light Rail, Michael Barry NEED OF STUDY 5 Bombay Trams (1874 – 1964) KolkataKolkata Trams Trams (since (2013) 1881) • 1st modern tram to become operational in Dholera , 800-sq km industrial city coming Trams likely to up near Gulf of Cambay in , on the - industrial corridor. reappear in new avatar in upcoming • Other potential locations for these industrial cities are between Indore and smart cities. [2010] Pithampur in and between Manesar and Bawel in . - http://articles.economi ctimes.indiatimes.com/ • New industrial cities would be named 'smart cities‘ - Rajinder Pal Singh, former secretary of department of industrial policy and promotion .

• The ministry will shortly begin a trial-run in a tier II city before taking the vintage-era Ministry plans to transportation system to other cities and connecting the tramways with major bus introduce trams and railway stations – Kamal Nath, former minister, urban development. in mid-size cities [2013] - http://www.live • Cities can start preparing detailed project reports for tramways as they will be mint.com// financed under the second phase – S.K. Lohia, former OSD, MoUD.

Madras Trams (1895 - 1953) Delhi Trams (1908 - 1963) Source: tramz.com/tva/in.html, Team-bhp.com NEED OF STUDY 6 TRAMS CLOSED/REOPENED AS LIGHT RAIL Bergen Trams (1965) Bergen Trams (2013) IN OTHER CITIES

• Are light rail transit systems a success or failure for cities? • Do any factors govern the success of light rail in cities? Paris Trams (1910)(2013) Athens Trams (1977) Athens Trams (2013) RESEARCH QUESTION & OBJECTIVES 7

Research Question: With world trend following revamping of tramways, what are the opportunities and challenges for LRTS in India?

Objectives :  To analyze factors leading to the closure of tramways in India.  To identify and assess factors responsible for the revival and success of LRTS in international cities.  To explore prospects of LRTS in Indian cities based on the identified factors. METHODOLOGY 8 OBJECTI Literature on VE 2 success Identify case studies with OBJECTIVE parameters and successfully running LRTS enabling factors of LRT Literature1 on decline of trams in India Analyze relationship between SET OF ENABLING success parameters and FACTORS enabling factors OBJECTI Factors leading to its failure VE 3 Analyze these Opportunities and challenges factors for top ten faced by chosen Indian cities million plus Indian cities Suggest measures to overcome these challenges SCOPE & LIMITATION 9

Scope:  Study explore into factors that can act as pre requisite enablers of light rail systems in cities.  These factors can be used to assess other cities as well, although any unique characteristics of the city should be kept in mind.

Limitation:  Study is based on secondary data of the case studies primarily depending on articles, reports and journals.  Due to limitation of time and data availability, only physical aspects of LRTS have been looked into. Many other factors which may be political, social or economic in nature have not been looked into. DECLINE OF TRAMS IN INDIA 10 TRAMS • 1881, Calcutta Tramways Company set up. • 1902, First electric car was run. • 1947, partition renders Govt. of as ultimate authority for local transport. • 1948, Govt. of West Bengal starts first bus service. • Calcutta Tramways Act, 1951 – Retention of 96% of post tax profit in a special reserved account for the use of Govt. of West Bengal to purchase the tramways after the concession ends. • 1960 s, CTC faces financial crisis paying taxes both in England and India . • Calcutta Tramways Act, 1967 – Govt. of West Bengal takes over management of CTC. • 1976, the govt. purchases CTC and by 1989, decides to phase it out. • Due to financial problems, CTC runs trams at bare minimum resources leading to lower quality of tram service. • Lack of efficient management and operational improvement in existing service. • With competition from public buses and motor vehicles, tram ridership went further down. • Initial profits in bus service leads to lack of interest of government in trams. Hence, no upgradation to improve service quality to Tram Metro Suburban Rail passengers. DECLINE OF TRAMS IN INDIA 11 1873, Bombay Tramway Victoria Terminus (1950) • BOMBAY TRAMS ( 1874 – 1964) Company Limited set up & run horse drawn trams till 1905 Flora Fountain • 1905, Bombay Electricity Supply & Tramways Company Limited bought Bombay Tramway Company. First electric car by 1907. • 1920, double decker trams introduced. • 1926, first bus introduced by BEST. Double-decker tram • BEST municipalized in 1947. • High expenses and low returns slowly phased out the trams by • 1964.After government ownership of trams, loss of interest in trams results from • Better returns and higher flexibility in network planning of bus services. • Lack of integration between bus and tram services, lead to competition. • No upgradation leads to lower quality of tram services Source: Hindu.com, Bestundertaking.com SUCCESS PARAMETERS AND ENABLING FACTORSLITERATURE 12 PARAMETERS INDICATORS City / Region profile Ridership Share in city daily trips Share in transit ridership Socio-Economic profile Enabling Factors Boardings/station Travel pattern Light rail passengers per track km Efficiency Passenger km per revenue km Light rail passengers km per track km •• RegionalTotalGDP perDaily Areacapita Trips (km2) (p.m.) (million) (Rs.) ••• HHCityTrips Size Population per HH (lakhs) Light rail pax km / operating cost Trip Rate • City Density •• RegionalEmployment Population Rate (%) (lakhs) • Avg. HH Income (p.m.)(Rs) Safety Number of accidents / 100000 km of LRT travel (Trips/person/day) (persons/sq.km.) • Avg.CBD employmentTrip Length vs Total • Car ownership / 1000 Affordability Ticket fare per km / GDP per capita • Regional Density • Population density along (kilometres)employment population Ticket fare per km / Avg. HH Income (persons/sq.km.) 400 m of track Monthly light rail fare / Avg. HH Income • Employment density along • City400 Area m of (km2)track Coverage Light rail track km per urban population Share of station catchment area in city area Cost Recovery Share of operating cost recovered

Source: Light rail for liveable cities, UITP An overview of Light Rail technology and its potential within an Australian environment, Western Australian Planning Commission Making successful LRT based regional transit system – Lessons from 5 cities, Gregory L Thompson and Jeffrey R. Brown Identifying the determinants of Light Rail mode choice for Medium and Long distance trips, Creemer, Cools, Tormans, Lateur, Janssens and Wets International Comparison of Urban Light Rail Systems - roles of integrated ticketing, pedestrianization and population density ; Graham Crampton INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES 13

COLOGNE KARLSRUHE MUNICH FRANKFURT PORTLAND BOSTON ZURICH BUDAPEST

DALLAS TUNIS

SYDNEY INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION 14 SCALE MUNICH Tram/Streetcar 2.5 0 5 15 kms LRT/Modern Tram COLOGNE Metro Suburban Rapid Rail

KARLSRUHE

Area: 310 km 2 Population: 13.8 lakhs Density: 4439 pp.sq.km.

N

Area: 405 km 2 Area: 174 km 2 SCALE Population: 10.2 lakhs Population: 2.9 lakhs Density: 2527 pp.sq.km. Density: 1707 pp.sq.km. 2.5 0 5 15 kms INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION 15 Tram/Streetcar LRT/Modern Tram BUDAPEST Metro Suburban Rapid Rail ZÜRICH

Area: 87.88 km 2 Population: 17.4 lakhs Density: 3313 pp.sq.km. N Area: 525 km 2 SCALE Population: 17.4 lakhs Density: 3313 pp.sq.km. 2.5 0 5 15 kms INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION 16 DALLAS Tram/Streetcar N LRT/Modern Tram SCALE Metro 0 15 kms Suburban Rapid Rail 2.5 5

PORTLAND

2 Area: 999 km 2 Area: 375 km Population: 12.4 lakhs Population: 6.0 lakhs Density: 1241 pp.sq.km. Density: 1604 pp.sq.km. INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION 17

BOSTON Tram/Streetcar TUNIS LRT/Modern Tram Metro Suburban Rapid Rail

SYDNEY

Area: 212 km 2 Population: 7.2 lakhs Density: 3387 pp.sq.km.

Area: 25 km 2 Area: 124 km 2 Population: 1.7 lakhs Population: 6.4 lakhs Density: 6760 pp.sq.km. Density: 5161 pp.sq.km. N • Light rail networks are usually radial networks acting as the trunk line. • In presence of Metro, it acts as a secondary trunk line or a feeder mode to SCALE metro. • It connects the city core to the suburbs. 2.5 0 5 15 kms INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES ENABLING FACTORS PROFILE 18 City / Region Profile Socio - Economic Regional Regional Density City City City Density Avg. HH Avg. HH Vehicles / Regional GDP per capita Employment HH Cities Population (persons / Area Population (persons / Income Income / GDP 1000 Area (km 2) (p.m.) (Rs.) Rate (%) Size (lakhs) sq.km.) (km 2) (lakhs) sq.km.) (p.m.) (Rs) per capita persons Sydney 12,367.7 46.05 372 25.0 1.69 6,760 2,00,066 94.2 5.0 6,68,132 3.3 664 Tunis 2,652.6 22.47 847 212.6 7.20 3,387 49,393 84.0 4.5 48,866 1.0 125 Dallas 24,059.0 67.01 279 999.3 12.41 1,242 2,64,426 94.6 2.6 2,03,732 0.8 625 Portland 17,310.0 22.89 132 375.8 6.03 1,605 2,32,495 93.8 2.3 2,36,081 1.0 692 Boston 12,105.0 45.00 372 124.0 6.40 5,161 2,94,361 92.9 2.1 2,63,000 0.9 556 Karlsruhe 6,919.2 26.87 388 173.5 2.96 1,706 2,41,493 94.4 1.7 1,51,248 0.6 461 Cologne 7,364.7 43.15 586 405.2 10.24 2,527 1,54,664 91.8 1.9 1,39,257 0.9 417 Budapest 7,626.0 32.84 431 525.1 17.40 3,314 1,11,142 93.8 1.9 1,54,584 1.4 330 Munich 1,114.8 18.04 1,618 310.4 13.78 4,439 2,18,526 94.4 1.7 4,67,634 2.1 540 Zürich 2,103.0 16.00 761 87.9 4.00 4,552 1,84,100 96.8 2.1 6,16,388 3.3 360 Frankfurt 14,756.0 56.00 380 248.3 6.87 2,767 2,08,547 94.8 1.8 3,75,330 1.8 546 Travel Pattern Total Daily Trips Trip Rate (Trips / Avg. Trip Length Trips per PT Modal Source: Cities (lakhs) person / day) (k.m.) HH Share (%) City wise Journal articles from Sydney 163.0 3.8 10.1 18.7 35 Transportation reports Transport Research Tunis 41.0 5.7 12.0 25.7 50 Census reports Record Dallas 48.7 3.9 9.1 10.1 4 Economic reports Journal of Public Portland 14.1 2.3 6.7 5.4 12 Regional transport Transportation Boston 36.6 4.3 8.2 8.8 35 authority website American Public Karlsruhe 10.4 3.5 18.0 6.0 51 City development authority Transport Association Cologne 42.0 4.1 23.0 7.7 27 website Budapest 39.8 2.3 15.4 4.4 54 Munich 49.6 3.6 15.0 6.2 21 UN Habitat website Zürich 15.0 3.8 16.4 7.9 45 World Bank website Frankfurt 25.7 3.2 25.8 5.8 39 INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES SUCCESS FACTORS PROFILE 19

Ridership Affordability Coverage Share of Light rail track Share in Light rail Monthly Monthly Light rail track km station Share in city km per lakh Cities transit Boardings passengers per ticket fare ticket fare / per lakh regional catchment daily trips urban ridership / station track km / GDP per Avg. HH population area in (%) population (%) (pax./km) capita (%) Income (%) (km/lakh persons) city area (km/lakh persons) (%) Sydney 0.1 0.2 463 833 7.0 2.1 7.6 0.3 18.1 Tunis 9.7 19.5 6,061 12,500 2.5 2.5 4.4 1.4 6.1 Dallas 2.0 49.5 1,605 703 3.6 4.7 11.0 2.0 1.2 Portland 8.8 73.0 1,416 1,481 2.6 2.5 13.8 3.6 4.5 Boston 6.2 17.8 3,448 6,151 1.4 1.6 5.8 0.8 10.5 Karlsruhe 34.4 67.5 3,103 4,696 1.1 1.8 25.7 2.8 13.0 Cologne 13.6 50.3 2,642 2,936 4.7 5.2 19.0 4.5 10.5 Budapest 27.0 50.0 1,717 6,947 2.6 1.9 8.9 4.7 23.5 Munich 5.7 27.3 1,727 3,606 2.1 1.0 5.7 4.4 10.4 Zürich 36.9 82.0 3,525 4,392 8.8 2.6 31.5 7.9 35.1 Frankfurt 5.2 13.3 978 1,976 2.3 1.3 9.8 1.2 10.8 SUCCESS PARAMETERS AND ENABLING FACTORSANALYSIS 20

Success Factors

Ridership Coverage Indicators

Share of station Boardings / Light rail passengers Share in city daily trips catchment area in city station per track km area R2

Car ownership / 1000 population 62.8 % 63.7 % 76.7 % 68.1 %

Trip Rate (Trips/person/day) 67.4 % 62.8 %

Enabling Factors Enabling Avg. Trip Length (kilometers) 61.7 % SUCCESS PARAMETERS AND ENABLING FACTORSANALYSIS 21 1. Car Ownership per thousand OUTLIERS SUCCESS population • Tunis – Vehicle ownership less OUTLIERSOUTLIERS (EXCEPTION) PARAMETERS OUTLIERSthan 200 per (EXCEPTION) 1000 persons. •• TunisTunis – – VehicleHigh density ownership (1.5 times less RIDERSHIP •• SydneyTunis – – High Due density to its small (1.5 times city thanhigherhigher 200 than than per 1000 average) average) persons. in in Tunis Tunis 1. Share of Light area (13 times smaller than OBSERVATIONmaymay cause cause higher higher boardings LRT daily per Rail trips in total average of all case studies), it • LRTpassengers share dropsper track below km. 10% as experiencesstation (>6000 a persons). higher share of trips OBSERVATIONcar density touches 450 per OBSERVATIONstation catchment area (1.4 times 2. Boardings per • thousandLRT dailypopulationpassengers. drop • theBoardings average)drop evento 2000 withpersons high • Itbelow further 4000 drops per below track 5% km as as car car station vehicleper station density as car (664 density per touches 1000 densitydensity crosses touches 550 450 per per thousand thousand 3. Light Rail daily persons).450 per thousand population. population.population. passengers per OBSERVATION• It further drops below 1500 as • Itcar further density drops crosses below 550 2000 per as network length • Station catchment area coverage car density crosses 550 per dropsthousand below population. 15% as car density COVERAGE thousand population. INFERENCEINFERENCEINFERENCEINFERENCE touches 450 per thousand 5. Share of station •••• HigherDevelopedHigherHigher vehicle vehicle vehicle cities density density density having may leads leads higher discourage to to vehicle lower lower buildinguse use density of of transit transitpopulation. of(>400 new leading leading per stati 10ons.to00to lower lowerpersons) LRT boardings show daily catchment area • Indianlowerpassengersper station Light cities per Rail with track use. low km. vehicle density (<400• It per further 1000 drops person belows) can 10% expect as in city area. ••• higherIndianIndianIndian station cities cities cities with may penetration,may lower experience experience vehicle but space high high density LRT boardingsrequirement (<400 daily passengerscarper per for station 1000density stations pers per jus canons)tcrosses t likerack pose should Tunis km a550 problem just to due be likeper to if not thought for at early stage . SUCCESS PARAMETERS AND ENABLING FACTORSANALYSIS 22 2. Trip rate SUCCESS OUTLIERS PARAMETERS • Sydney – Despite having high trip rate (4 trips/person/day) it RIDERSHIP has low boardings (<500 R2 = 67.4% 1. Boardings per persons) per station as it has low regional density (<400 station pp.sq.km.) and high income parity (3.3) as well as vehicle density (664 per 1000 persons). OBSERVATION • Boardings increase above 2000 persons per station as trip rate cross 3 trips per person per day. • It further rises above 4000 INFERENCE persons as trip rate rises beyond • Indian cities, although with low trip rates (<2),4.5 can trips still per expect person high per day. ridership due to very high regional density (~ 1000-7000 pp.sq.km). SUCCESS PARAMETERS AND ENABLING FACTORSANALYSIS 23 3. Average Trip Length SUCCESS OUTLIERS PARAMETERS • Cologne – Average trip length RIDERSHIP above 23 km with moderate share (14%) due to presence to 1. Share of Light R2 = 61.7% suburban rapid rail. Rail trips in total • Frankfurt – Average trip length trips above 23 km with low share (5%) due to presence of suburban rapid rail. OBSERVATION • LRT share rises above 10% as average trip length increases beyond 10 km. INFERENCE • It further rises above 20% as • LRT can act as good transit for medium to long distance trips in absence of a average trip length increases superior transit like metro or suburban rapid rail. beyond 15 km. • Indian cities barely cross the threshold of average trip lengths (6-7 km), but with higher densities, should experience high share in total ridership . POTENTIAL IN INDIAN CITIES 24 TABLE 1 TABLE 2 Enabling Factors Success Parameter - Share of LRT passengers in transit ridership (%) Vehicles / Avg. Trip Cities Trip Rate 1000 persons Length Vehicles / 1000 Avg. Trip Cities persons Length Mumbai 69 11.9 1.7 Regressed Mumbai 112.1 27.5 Delhi 355 10.2 1.6 Delhi 64.1 20.5 Kolkata 81 10 1.6 Y = mx + c Kolkata 110.1 19.7 312 8.6 1.5 Equations Chennai 71.3 13.9 Bangalore 343 9.6 1.4 Bangalore 66.1 18.0 Hyderabad 221 7.9 1.5 Y – Success Parameter Hyderabad 86.6 11.0 Ahmedabad 321 6.2 1.4 x – Enabling Factor Ahmedabad 69.8 4.0 Pune 335 6.1 1.3 Pune 67.5 3.6 Surat 492 6.0 1.3 Surat 41.1 3.2 Jaipur 359 6.0 1.3 Jaipur 63.4 3.2 TABLE 3 Success Share of station catchment area in Share of LRT passengers in daily trips Boardings / station Light Rail passenger per track km Parameter city area Vehicles / 1000 Vehicles / 1000 Vehicles / 1000 Enablers Avg. Trip Length Trip Rate Trip Rate Vehicles / 1000 persons persons persons persons Correlation 0.487 0.3 0.798 0.734 0.876 0.535 0.293 Weightage 62% 38% 52% 48% 62% 38% 100% POTENTIAL IN INDIAN CITIES 25 Share of LRT passengers in Light Rail passenger per track Share of station catchment Boardings / station Cities daily trips km area in city area (persons / station) (%) (persons / km) (%) Mumbai 37.8 5,500 14,455 57.2 Delhi 21.3 2,427 5,606 30.6 Kolkata 35.4 7,685 20,587 65.3 Chennai 22.8 6,900 17,618 31.0 Bangalore 22.2 6,353 16,140 31.0 Hyderabad 25.6 2,846 6,779 31.0 Ahmedabad 19.6 2,228 5,101 32.8 Pune 18.9 2,144 4,934 37.0 Surat 11.7 2,051 4,536 33.7 Jaipur 17.4 1,706 3,450 17.4

40 INFERENCE Share of LRT 35 FINAL SCORE • Mumbai and Kolkata score the highest as they have passengers in daily trips 30 comparatively higher average trip length with

Boardings / 25 relatively very low car density. station 20 • As Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore already have

15 metro system, they do not need to look into LRT. Light Rail passenger per 10 Hyderabad has its metro project under construction. track km 5 • Ahmedabad and Pune can start with low cost LRT Share of station systems which can later be upgraded to full scale 0 catchment area in city area system as more factors favour it. • Surat and Jaipur score the lowest as they have very high vehicle density and low trip lengths and trip POTENTIAL IN INDIAN CITIES 26

CONCLUSION

• Average trip lengths of the chosen Indian cities are enough to start a LRT system. • Even with lower trip rates, Indian cities should fetch good ridership due to its high density. • It has been seen that once vehicle ownership crosses 450 per 1000 persons then LRT share drops significantly. Indian cities have almost reached this limit and hence should proactively look into LRT as well as other efficient PT systems to discourage private vehicles. REFERENCES

• Barry, Michael. Through the cities: The revolution in light rail . Dublin: Frankfort Press, 1991.

• Bell, Patrick, Gina Scutelnicu and Susah Young. "Determinants of success: Lessons to be learned from Rail Transit Systems Development in Miami-Dade and Dallas Counties." Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences (2007): 21-35.

• Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization. Boston Transportation Fact Book and Neighbourhood Profiles . Boston: Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2002.

• Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking. http://www.bestundertaking.com/tram.asp . 2010. February 2014.

• City of Cologne. Cologne Facts & Figures . Cologne: Department of City Development and Statistics, 2011.

• Crampton, Graham . International comparison of Urban Light Rail Systems: the roles of integrated ticketing and population density . Paper. Reading: Reading University, 202.

• Creemers, Lieve, et al. "Identifying the determinants of Light Rail mode choice for medium and long distance trips." Transport Research Record (2012): 30-38.

• Currie, Graham and Alexa Delbosc. "Exploring comparative ridership driver of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit routes." Journal of Public Transportation (2013).

• Dickens, Matthew and John Neff. 2011 Public Transportation Fact Book . Washington, D.C.: American Public Transportation Association, 2011.

• Endemann, Peter and Andreas Maleika. Mobility in the Frankfurt / Rhine main region: Evidence from the German National Travel Survey . Frankfurt am Main: Association for European Transport and Contributors, 2005.

• Ginn, Simon. An Overview of Light Rail Technology and its Potential within an Australian Environment . Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission, 1998.

• Gleave, Steer Davies. What Light Rail can do for cities . London: Passenger Transport Executive Group, 2005.

• Higgins, Christopher D. and Mark R. Ferguson. The North American Light Rail experience: Insights for Hamilton . Hamilton: McMaster Institute for Transportation and Logistics, 2012. REFERENCES • Naegeli, Lorenzo, Prof. Dr. Ulrich Weidmann and Andrew Nash. A checklist for successful application of tram-train systems in Europe . Zurich: Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, 2012.

• Reddy, Sudhakara B. and P. Balachandra. Dynamics of Urban Mobility: A comparative analysis of megacities of India . Mumbai: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, 2010.

• Rossman, John. http://www.tramz.com/tva/in.html . n.d. December 2013.

• Roy, Arghya Sinha. Trams in relation of urban fabric of Kolkata: Prospect or Retrospect? Mini Thesis. Ahmedabad: CEPT University, 2002.

• Sethi, Neha. http://www.livemint.com/Politics/5RPE6iNSxRTRFrxMUuTqaM/Ministry-plans-to-introduce-trams-in-midsize-cities.html . 10 September 2013. Article. January 2014.

• Sikdar, P. K. "http://www.satw.ch/caets2012/7_P4_Sikdar.pdf." 30 August 2012. March 2014.

• Taplin, Michael. http://www.lrta.org/ . n.d. January 2014.

• Thompson, Gregory L. and Jeffrey R. Brown. "Making a successful LRT based regional transit system: Lessons from five new start cities." Journal of Public Transportation (2012).

• Thomson, Lisa Mary and Shantanu Nandan Sharma. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-02-07/news/27623745_1_trams-cities-dholera . 7 Feburary 2010. Article. January 2014.

• UITP. "Light Rail for Liveable Cities." June 2001. http://www.uitp.org/. Focus Paper. March 2014.

• Vivier, Jean. Mobility in Cities Database . Brussels: UITP, 2006.

• Vuchic, Vukan R. Urban transit systems and technology . New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.

• Wilbur Smith Associates. "Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban areas in India." 2008.

• Zirbes, Arnd Klein. Cologne Economic Region 2012 - Statistical Overview . Cologne: Cologne Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 2012. THANK YOU