Stirling City Centre Light
Rail Feasibility Study
- Phase 2
November 2010
Public Transport Authority of WA
Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited
ABN 80 078 004 798
Level 5
503 Murray Street
PERTH WA 6000
PO Box 7181
CLOISTERS SQUARE WA 6850
Australia
Telephone +61 8 9489 9700
Facsimile
+61 8 9489 9777
Email
perth@pb.com.au
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AS/NZS 4801
10-0477-02-2106689A
A+ GRI Rating: Sustainability Report 2009
Revision
Details
00
Original
01
Revision A
02
Revision B
Date
Amended By
24 Nov. 10
B. McMahon
©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited (PB) [2010].
Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of PB. This
document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or
reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by PB. PB makes no representation,
undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.
Author:
Brian McMahon ..........................................................................
Signed:
...................................................................................................
Reviewer:
Dick Fleming...............................................................................
Signed:
...................................................................................................
Approved by:
Dick Fleming...............................................................................
Signed:
...................................................................................................
Date:
24 November 2010 .....................................................................
Distribution:
...................................................................................................
Please note that when viewed electronically this document may contain pages that have been intentionally left blank. These
blank pages may occur because in consideration of the environment and for your convenience, this document has been set up
so that it can be printed correctly in double-sided format.
10-0477-02-2106689A
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Contents
Page number
Executive summary
v
1.
Introduction
1
1.1
Background
1
1.2
Modal comparison matrix
3
1.3
Phase 1 results
4
1.4
System requirements
6
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
6
7
8
2.
Operational
Environmental
Economic
Modal characteristics
9
2.1
Bus on street
9
2.2
2.1.1
Patronage capacity
2.1.2
Capital costs
2.1.3
Operational costs
2.1.4
Value uplift
2.1.5
Running ways
2.1.6
Corridor reservations
2.1.7
Stations
2.1.8
Vehicles
2.1.9
Other elements
Tram on street
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
2.3
2.2.1
Patronage capacity
2.2.2
Capital costs
2.2.3
Operation costs
2.2.4
Value uplift
2.2.5
Running ways
2.2.6
Corridor reservations
2.2.7
Stations
2.2.8
Vehicles
2.2.9
Other elements
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
2.3.7
2.3.8
2.3.9
19
19
20
20
20
21
22
22
23
Patronage capacity
Capital costs
Operational costs
Value uplift
Running ways
Corridor reservations
Stations
Vehicles
Other elements
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page i
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Contents
(Continued)
Page number
3.
4.
5.
Page ii
2.4
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
24
2.5
2.4.1
Patronage capacity
2.4.2
Construction costs
2.4.3
Operation costs
2.4.4
Value uplift
2.4.5
Running ways
2.4.6
Corridor reservation
2.4.7
Stations
2.4.8
Vehicles
2.4.9
2.4.9 Other elements
Emerging technology – trams on tyres
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
28
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
2.5.6
2.5.7
2.5.8
2.5.9
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
Patronage capacity
Capital costs
Operational costs
Value uplift
Running way
Corridor requirements
Stations
Vehicles
Other elements
Value capture
33
3.1
Joint development
34
3.2
Benefitted areas charges
34
3.3
Tax Increment Financing
35
3.4
Revenue sharing
36
3.5
User fees
36
3.6
Other Innovations
36
Refined patronage forecasts – TODTrips model
39
4.1
Background
39
4.2
TODTrips model
39
4.3
Assessment result of five transit modal scenarios
41
4.4
4.3.1
Scenario 1 – Base case (Bus)
4.3.2
Scenario 2 – Street Car/Tram
4.3.3
Scenario 3A – LRT
4.3.4
Scenario 3B – BRT
4.3.5
Scenario 4 – LRT (Single Sided)
Internal trips – mode share and ridership estimates
42
43
44
45
45
46
4.5
External trips – mode share and ridership estimates
48
4.6
Combined internal and external trips - mode share and ridership estimates
49
Summary
51
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Contents
(Continued)
Page number
List of tables
Page number
Table 1.1
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Table 2.8
Table 2.9
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Table 4.11
Table 4.12
Table 4.13
Table 4.14
Table 4.15
Table 4.16
Table 4.17
Summary of findings by scenario
Typical Conventional Bus system characteristics
Typical Street Car/Tram characteristics
Adelaide Street Car/Tram characteristics
Range of BRT characteristics
Typical BRT characteristics
Existing BRT characteristics
Typical LRT characteristics
Existing LRT system characteristics
Existing TransLohr systems - Costs
Existing public transports operating environment for Stirling
Scenario base (Bus’s) operating environment
Scenario S2 (Street Car/Trams) operating environment
Scenario 3A (LRT’s) operating environment
Scenario 3B (BRT’s) operating environment
Scenario 4 (LRT to one side) operating environment
Low car use – Mode share for internal trips
High car use scenario – Mode share of internal trips
Low car use scenario – ridership share among different transport modes for internal
trips
High car use scenario – ridership share among different transport modes for internal
trips
Distribution of regional access and egress by external trips into and out of study area
(I-E and E-I movements)
Modal split of external trips using local transit services
Ridership estimates of external trips (I-E and E-I movements) using transit services
Low car use – mode share for combined internal and external trips
High car use – mode share for combined internal and external trips
Low car use – ridership estimates for combined internal and external trips
High car use – ridership estimates for combined internal and external trips
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
5
10
13
14
18
19
20
24
25
29
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
50
50
Page iii
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Contents
(Continued)
Page number
List of figures
Page number
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 2.1
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Stirling study area
Essential traits of a successful short haul transit service
Centre median running LRT with outside platforms in Portland, Oregon
Stop locations of existing public transport service
Stop locations of new local bus service in Scenario 1
Stop locations of Street Car service in Scenario 2
Stop locations of LRT service in Scenario 3A
Stop locations of BRT service in Scenario 3B
Stop locations of LRT (to one side) service in Scenario 4
2
6
24
41
42
43
44
45
46
List of photographs
Page number
Photo 2.1
Photo 2.2
Photo 2.3
Photo 2.4
Conventional bus
Streetcar (tram) in San Francisco with parallel bike lane and on-street parking
Centre island platform along Eugene Oregon EmX BRT line
Fully dedicated BRT corridor
9
13
18
21
Appendices
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
Appendix B
Operating scenario and costs
Appendix C
Comparative operating characteristics
Appendix D
Stirling City Centre- Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2 TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Page iv
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Executive summary
The Stirling City Centre Alliance (SCCA) is seeking to create a high quality transit corridor, in particular
light rail, as a significant feature in the city centre’s revitalization. The SCCA has initiated an investigation
into the feasibility of light rail serving the Stirling City Centre (SCC) and Scarborough Beach Road linked
to the Glendalough rail station in Osborne Park. In this phase (Phase 2) of the feasibility assessment,
the following tasks were conducted, the results of which are presented in this report.

compare the operating characteristics of the ‘high quality transit’ modal options and running way
environments in general based on a desk-top assessment

refine route and running way options for the study area

refine the patronage forecasts for the study area by mode using the PB TODTrips model

assess the high level costs and potential value-uplift of the modal options for the study area

identify a preferred alignment, mode and running way environment for the study area.
In addition, the report summarizes potential value capture benefits and techniques that could be used to
help finance the proposed infrastructure.
The findings of the analysis supports the further consideration of quality transit in the study area. As part
of the desk top assessment of modal options, five different forms of ‘high quality’ mass transit systems
have been examined. The different modes include standard buses on street, trams on street, Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) with buses in exclusive lanes with high priority and Light Rail Transit (LRT) in exclusive
lanes with priority. An additional emerging technology, tram on tyres has been assessed (TransLohr).
Five scenarios were setup in TODTrips to represent alternative modal options and operating
environments that could be considered to serve the SCC in 2031. The five alternative modal scenarios
analysed included:

Base case with 2031 bus option

Streetcar/Tram on kerbside

LRT in dedicated centre median

BRT in dedicated centre median

LRT in dedicated single sided running way.
Due to the proprietary nature of the TransLohr technology, which would limit the project sponsors to a
single manufacturer, this mode was not considered in patronage forecasts. In general, the broad
operating environment for each scenario was set up to maintain appropriate existing public transport
services with the addition of a new mode with a specified level of service.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page v
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
The potential high quality transit system is part of an integrated land use and transport strategy for Stirling
City Centre and the Glendalough/Osborne Park redevelopment areas. The potential transit upgrade is
inextricably linked to a robust land use vision, a parking strategy to reduce private motor vehicle usage, a
parking levy to fund catalytic transport infrastructure, control of roadway capacity to avoid recongestion of
Scarborough Beach Road and a comprehensive bicycling and pedestrian strategy. Each of the
components is mutually supportive and, as a whole, creates a unique and supportive environment for
altering travel behaviour.
Phase 1 of the Stirling Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study undertook a ‘high level’ examination of potential
patronage of a light rail system to support the Stirling – Osborne Park corridor. This was not a detailed
modelling exercise but rather a broad ‘spreadsheet’ modelling approach with the prime objective of
establishing if the proposed level of land use intensity could generate sufficient demand to support a light
rail system to warrant moving to a more detailed study of potions.
In Phase 1, the base case analysis showed an estimated light rail patronage of approximately
27,000 trips on an average weekday. To place these findings in context, comparison was made with light
rail systems introduced in recent years in the United States. Comparison with these figures indicates that
the Stirling light rail system is definitely ‘in the ballpark’.
Increasing development to the higher ‘aspirational’ levels would increase this somewhat to approximately
31,000 trips, while if the transit mode increased from 5.5% to 15% as many as 41,000 trips per day might
be expected. (Note: The Phase 2 assessment assumed slightly higher mode shares by mode as result of
the parking and cycling strategies that have been advanced by the City of Stirling subsequent to the
Phase 1 study to support the integrated land use and transport strategy).
The analysis considered the potential corridor between Stirling Station and Glendalough Station as two
stages. Stage One comprised a north south corridor along a realigned Ellen Stirling Boulevard or
Stephenson Avenue. This stage would almost certainly not be justified on patronage grounds alone over
the short term. However as a development catalyst it displays some merit. Stage Two included an east
west corridor along Scarborough Beach Road between Ellen Stirling Boulevard and Glendalough Station.
The Phase 1 study suggested that Stages One and Two together would probably generate significant
levels of associated development and patronage provided that there is ‘buy in’ from land holders and
developers in the corridor.
Alternatively, Stage One of the line should be used as a catalyst for development within the Stirling
Central area to help encourage the preferred patterns of development. In this role, Stage One must be
tied to commitments to develop transit supportive land uses within an acceptable timeframe and firm
agreements should be in place to adequately cover operating costs. In addition, under this scenario,
Stage One should only proceed if there is certainty that the full system will be built to ensure a more
financially sustainable outcome.
The Phase 2 study reinforces the findings that a high quality transit system, such as a LRT or street
running tram is viable if supporting land use and transport policies are in place.
Page vi
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
The following conclusions and observations are made in relation to the results of the modelling:

There is a potentially strong market for a high quality transit system to provide for travel within the
study area and to facilitate the use of public transport for access to the area from other parts of
the metropolitan area. In particular, there is strong potential for the operation of an effective internal
transit system in the Stirling Centre. In other words, the transit system will function well as a
‘pedestrian accelerator’ for relatively short trips amongst origins and destinations within the study
area.

The modelling results show that demand could be in the range of around 40,000 to
55,000 passengers per day. This result is considered to be relatively high and has been driven by
the land use assumptions and the overall high level of development included in the model. These
figures should be reviewed as part of a practical assessment of the development potential in the
study area.

Further refinement of the patronage estimate should be completed to inform the system design. This
should include an assessment of an initial operating segment on the north-south alignment only
(Phase 1), a base scenario using current development conditions, higher transit mode shares in
Phase 1 alone (e.g., 15%), and with alternative local bus operating conditions (e.g., the 400 series
bus operating more frequently)

The transit system has a strong role to play in minimising the use of private motor vehicles for
movement within the centre and minimising the demand for parking.

With regards the modes tested, the street running transit (tram) shows that it has the potential to
attract marginally more passengers than the other options. This mode is the most accessible, with
the highest number of stops which underlines the importance of selecting a mode which can be
closely integrated with development along the corridor.

The land use development forecasts herein for the Bus and BRT scenarios are equivalent to those
for the LRT and tram scenarios. However, in reality, these thresholds of development would likely not
be attained since developers would not be attracted to invest in the corridor under the Bus and BRT
scenarios. Development tends to ‘follow the rails’ with a notable preference for investment along rail
corridors due to the increased property values and returns. As a result, forecasting should be refined
to reflect a lower level of development for the bus-based scenarios.

The design of the transit system, the final decision regarding the streets in which it will operate and
the delivery of developments which support active street frontages will have a strong bearing on the
ultimate success of the transit system.

It is essential that supportive land use and transportation policy framework be in place prior to
implementation to allow the catalytic effects and economic uplift to be produced effectively and
to allow for value capture.

Close integration is required at Stirling and Glendalough Railway Stations to ensure barrier free
seamless interchange conditions for passengers to maximise the attractiveness of the transit system
for people travelling from outside the study area. In addition, the Stirling transit system should be
included as part of the Perth PTA fare system to ensure that riders get a cost penalty free transfer
from rail and bus to the new Transit system. Lastly, the Stirling system will require integration and
standardization with the overall Perth LRT system as set forth in the 20 Year Transit Plan (pending).
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page vii
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Based on the modelling findings and the potential land use integration and transport characteristics, a
hybrid tram/LRT system is recommended for further consideration in the next phase (i.e. Concept Design
and Final Feasibility). The hybrid would include a centre median dedicated LRT (and potential BRT) along
Scarborough Beach Road. This running environment would maintain operational reliability by avoiding
congested travel lanes. It is recommended that mid-block traffic signals be introduced along Scarborough
Beach Road to allow for two or more additional stations and safe pedestrian and cyclist access to be
included along the corridor. As shown in the modelling, the additional stations allowed by the
streetcar/tram served to increase patronage.
The hybrid would include either a streetcar along a realigned Ellen Stirling Boulevard or a single side
running LRT along the west side of Stephenson Avenue. The benefit of the former is the inclusion of
additional stations and better integration with supportive, surrounding land uses. The benefit of the latter
is the placement of the stations in closer and more direct walking access to the land uses due to
separation created by the day-lighted stream and parklands on the east side of the street.
In terms of value capture, it is clear that significant economic and property value uplift occurs with the
introduction of light rail and street cars if supportive conditions are in place. These include a general
growth in the real estate market and the presence of congestion so that value is attached to the presence
of the high quality transit as a more reliable and convenient alternative to other modes. There is also
growing evidence that BRT systems can provide similar benefits however the level of documentation is
not as extensive.
A modal comparison summary matrix is provided in Appendix A to illustrate characteristics of existing
high quality transit systems globally. In addition, a range of hypothetical operating characteristics,
scenarios and costs are presented in Appendix B for each mode. The matrices have been developed to
allow for the assessment of optimal service plans based on the incremental growth of patronage over
time, required equipment and optimal frequency of service. The matrices should be used to further refine
the service plan as part of the next steps.
The hypothetical costs included in Appendix B for each mode include capital and operating costs as well
as life cycle costs for various operating scenarios based on potential patronage and service patterns. One
noteworthy observation based on the life cycle cost analysis is that trams and light rail appear to have
lower long term costs than bus based systems. However, verification of this observation will require
additional refinement based on the actual proposed operating plan and concept design in Phase 3.
The reader is forewarned not to make generalizations about the performance of the Stirling system based
on international and national averages as presented in the report and in Appendices A and B. Costs and
performance measures are based on averages from urban or suburban settings that may not be relevant
to the Stirling corridor. The information simply provides some basic parameters for illustrative purposes.
A more detailed concept design, service plan and final patronage forecast is recommended as a next step
(Phase 3) to more precisely determine costs for the Stirling LRT.
Page viii
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
1.
Introduction
1.1
Background
The Stirling City Centre Alliance (SCCA) is seeking to create a high quality transit corridor, in
particular light rail, as a significant feature in the city centre’s revitalization. The SCCA has
initiated an investigation into the feasibility of light rail serving the Stirling City Centre and
Scarborough Beach Road. In this phase (Phase 2) of the feasibility assessment, the
following tasks were conducted, the results of which are presented in this report.

compare the operating characteristics of the ‘high quality transit’ modal options and
running way environments in general based on a desk-top assessment

refine route and running way options for the study area

refine the patronage forecasts for the study area by mode using the TODTrips model

assess the high level costs and potential value-uplift of the modal options for the study
area

identify a preferred alignment, mode and running way environment for the study area.
In addition, the report summarizes potential value capture benefits and techniques that could
be used to help finance the proposed infrastructure.
Phase 1 elements are summarised in Section 1.3 below.
As shown in Figure 1.1, the study corridor is the approximately 3.4 kilometre corridor
extending in approximately an L-shape between the Stirling and Glendalough Stations on the
Perth Northern Rail Line in the City of Stirling. The proposed light rail corridor would extend
in a north south direction between the Stirling Station and Scarborough Beach Road, through
the Stirling City Centre, along either existing realigned Ellen Stirling Boulevard or the
proposed Stephenson Boulevard. From this location, the east west portion of the line would
extend to Glendalough Station along Scarborough Beach Road.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 1
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Figure 1.1
Stirling study area
This study has been triggered by the desire of the SCCA to redevelop the Stirling City Centre
into a major urban centre incorporating significant new commercial, retail, community and
residential opportunities. Studies are also underway to revitalize and intensify the
Scarborough Beach Road corridor through the Herdsman Lake Business Park and
Glendalough. The redevelopment would represent a fundamental change in the nature of the
area from one dominated by a major shopping mall, warehouses and bulky goods retail to a
city centre featuring 24/7 activity.
Previous work undertaken by the SCCA indicated that the road network would not be
capable of handling the proposed increase in activity without a major shift to other transport
modes, including public transport. An LRT has been proposed as one method of
accommodating the required transport demand while at the same time providing an ‘anchor’
to encourage the type and level of development intended.
Page 2
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
It is expected by the project sponsors that a high quality transit system could catalyse the
desired redevelopment and infill in the study area. It is also anticipated that the quality transit
could generate higher real estate market values that could be ‘captured’ by local and state
government to finance a portion of the infrastructure to support this redevelopment. An
additional key role of the transit corridor will be to link people to the rail system at Stirling and
Glendalough Stations. It will be critical to the success of the transport system in meeting the
mode share targets for the Regional Centre that this ‘short haul’ distributor function work
effectively by providing a seamless connection to the rail and bus networks. In turn the rail
and bus networks will provide the links to the wider metropolitan area. Given the fact that the
majority of people will be accessing destinations which are outside reasonable walking
distance of the railway stations quality transit is well suited to serving this distributor role.
As part of the desk top assessment of modal options, five different forms of ‘high quality’
mass transit systems have been examined. The different modes include standard buses on
street, trams on street, buses in exclusive lanes with high priority and trams/LRT in exclusive
lanes with priority. An additional emerging technology, tram on tyres has been assessed.
The five modes have been categorised as the following:

Bus
Bus on street without priority

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Bus in exclusive lanes with priority

Streetcar
Rail base tram on street without priority

Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Light rail in exclusive lanes with priority

Emerging Technology
Tyre base tram without priority.
Chapter 2 describes the operating characteristics of each mode. Section 1.2 below
summarizes the elements addressed in the modal comparison.
Chapter 3 sets forth a summary the potential tools to capture the economic benefits
associated with fixed transit infrastructure.
The hypothetical system operating characteristics and refined patronage forecasts for each
mode (excepting TransLohr) based on the TODTrips analysis are presented in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 summarizes the key findings and next steps for the introduction of LRT to Stirling.
1.2
Modal comparison matrix
Based on the results of the desk top assessment, Appendix A presents a side by side
comparison of the five modes by each of the following characteristics:

transit mode use in other cities

capacity by vehicle type – different vehicle type by seated, standees and total
passengers numbers

peak hour capacity using international examples and an estimate of the theoretical
capacity by using set frequencies and the research vehicle type
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 3
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
1.3

capital expenditure – cost per km for infrastructure using international examples of
infrastructure and construction costs per kilometre in 2009/2010 Australian dollars

cost per vehicle – international examples of average cost for vehicles in 2009/2010
Australian dollars

operating costs – estimated by kilometre, revenue passenger kilometre or vehicle hour

operating speeds (Average and Maximums) – approximate timetabled running speed
and the maximum achievable speed by type of vehicle

turning radii

power source

timetable and technology reliability – ability for the technology to maintain timetabled
running times

technology maturity – level of maturity that the technology is at in terms of reliability and
use in other cities

integration with pedestrian realm and land uses – how well the technology integrates
with the pedestrian environment and surrounding land uses

visual amenity – Issues that the technology has on the surrounding area

value uplift and redevelopment catalyst – influence the technology has on property
values and an effect it has on increasing or encouraging development around the
corridor and stations.
Phase 1 results
Phase 1 of the Stirling Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study undertook a ‘high level’
examination of potential patronage of a light rail system to support the Stirling – Osborne
Park corridor. This was not a detailed modelling exercise but rather a broad ‘spreadsheet’
modelling approach with the prime objective of establishing if the proposed level of land use
intensity could generate sufficient demand to support a light rail system to warrant moving to
a more detailed study of potions. In Phase 1, the base case analysis showed an estimated
light rail patronage of approximately 27,000 trips on an average weekday. Increasing
development to the higher ‘aspirational’ levels would increase this somewhat to
approximately 31,000 trips, while if the transit mode increased from 5% to 15% as many as
41,000 trips per day might be expected.
The high level analysis in this phase was based on outputs from the Department of
Planning’s STEM model for 2031. It also considered Scarborough Beach Road Population
and Land Use Study (Syme Marmion 2009). The base case relied on mid-range
development projections from this study, resulting in a combined forecast a resident
population of 23,500 and an employee population of 36,650. The base case also assumed a
public transport mode share of 5.5% that is current for Greater Perth.
Page 4
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
These figures were found to be very sensitive to changes in shopping related trips and trip
behaviour, as was shown by the test results of reducing the retail trip generation rate for the
Osborne Park area. It is worth noting that the patronage estimation included in the Syme
Marmion report likely underestimates retail trips significantly, as their estimate considers only
trips by householders and inbound work trips.
The analysis also considered the impacts on ridership of phasing the construction into two
phases. In Phase 1, the line would extend north south for approximately 1 kilometre between
Stirling Station and south of Scarborough Beach Road. The importance of future
development along Scarborough Beach Road in Osborne Park and Glendalough areas was
highlighted by the testing of a Phase 1 tram route only. This returned a much lower estimate
of patronage (around 6,000) trips compared to the Base Case.
The findings of each scenario are summarised in Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1
Total trips
Tram/LRT trips
Summary of findings by scenario
Base case
Phase 1
tram/LRT
only
Increased
development
Improved PT
mode share
(15%)
Reduced
retail
intensity
(O.P.)
479,000
479,000
598,000
479,000
396,000
27,000
6,000
31,000
41,000
21,000
To place these findings in context, comparison was made with light rail systems introduced
in recent years in the United States). Comparison with these figures indicates that the Stirling
light rail system is definitely ‘in the ballpark’.
The analysis considered the potential corridor between Stirling Station and Glendalough
Station as two stages. Stage One comprised a north south corridor along a realigned Ellen
Stirling Boulevard or Stephenson Avenue. This stage would almost certainly not be justified
on patronage grounds alone over the short term. However as a development catalyst it
displays some merit. Stage Two included an east west corridor along Scarborough Beach
Road between Ellen Stirling Boulevard and Glendalough Station.
The Phase 1 study suggested that Stages One and Two together would probably generate
significant levels of associated development and patronage provided that there is ‘buy in’
from land holders and developers in the corridor.
Alternatively, Stage One of the line should be used as a catalyst for development within the
Stirling Central area to help encourage the preferred patterns of development. In this role,
Stage One must be tied to commitments to develop transit supportive land uses within an
acceptable timeframe and firm agreements should be in place to adequately cover operating
costs. In addition, under this scenario, Stage One should only proceed if there is certainty
that the full system will be built to ensure a more financially sustainable outcome.
It was further concluded that an investigation should be conducted to refine the initial
operating segment or extent of Stage One. Minor changes in the segment may benefit the
ridership by linking existing or near term destinations, a critical characteristic of successful
LRTs. In other words, the initial operating segment of the LRT should connect ‘somewhere’
to ‘somewhere’ to foster ridership and to catalyse development. The segment should not be
based on right of way availability as the primary factor, but on the connection of destinations
and the frontage on development sites.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 5
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
On these results, further detailed study of the proposed LRT appeared warranted. Thus
Phase 2 of the study was undertaken. It was recommended in Phase 1 that the ability of an
LRT to shape and support the type, level and location of urban development desired be
considered in Phase 2. The requirements for effective integration with the rail and bus
networks (both operationally and physically) and potential issues relating spatial needs and
co-location of with other modes were also recommended for consideration in Phase 2.
1.4
System requirements
In order to assess the general characteristics of each mode, the following system
operational, environmental and economic requirements have been identified. Many of the
factors cannot be quantified or measured in this analysis due to the study scope. However,
the factors were taken into consideration in developing the alternative modal and running
way concepts.
1.4.1

Generate and Attract Local Trips – the proposed transit system, including both the
mode and service plan attracts riders with trips within the study area or to and from the
study area. Less emphasis is given to trips travelling through the study area.

Supports Desired Activities – the aim of the system is encourage an urban vibrancy
along its streets. Desired activities include sitting, walking, biking and other daily
activities.

Short Haul Service – the primary purpose of the 3.4-kilometre line examined herein is to
serve local as opposed to regional trips. Regional access to other centres is envisioned
to be provided by the Northern Rail Line and the Circle Line route in the foreseeable
future. Thus, a high frequency service with low waiting times is more important than
speed of operation.
Figure 1.2
Page 6
Operational
Essential traits of a successful short haul transit service
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2

Priority Where Needed – In its role as a short haul service, priority in a dedicated right of
way is only required where substantial congestion will occur throughout the day.

Integration with PTA Long Haul Service – There are two other potential long term transit
improvements that may require a dedicated right of way along Scarborough Beach
Road. A dedicated right of way is sought by the PTA for a potential BRT line extending
from Scarborough Beach through the corridor to the CBD. PTA has indicated its intent
to operate a service with 3 to 5 minute headways along the roadway and is interested in
co-locating the service with the short-haul service in a dedicated right of way. The PTA
is also interested in a dedicated right of way for operation of a regional LRT connection
from the study area south through Subiaco to the University of Western Australia. This
concept is set forth as a year 11–20 horizon project in the 20 Year Transit Plan. In
addition to integration with the proposed long haul BRT and LRT, the short haul service
will need to integrates with the PTA’s conventional bus service.

Meets Ultimate Passenger Demand – The Phase I forecast broadly estimates between
26,000–40,000 passengers per day. The Phase II forecasts resulting from the TODTrips
modelling show the following range:


Bus in Street

Tram in Street

BRT in Dedicated Right of Way

LRT in Dedicated Right of Way.
Due to private property ownership and the lack of access to parallel east west
alignments, it is assumed that the east west segment will run along Scarborough Beach
Road (SBR). It is further assumed that the proposed running way for the transit service
should support the ultimate expansion of the right of way along Scarborough Beach
Road from 30-metres to 42-metres. Two options, Ellen Stirling Boulevard and the
proposed Stephenson Boulevard are considered for the north-south segment.
1.4.2
Environmental

Carbon Reduction – ability to attract infill development will support savings in carbon
dioxide.

Low Traffic Impact – at a high level, the concept should support travel route choice for
all modes including vehicular traffic. For example, the dedicated right of way should
allow cross traffic at all intersections.

Supports Constrained Parking Supply – since the study area cannot support additional
car-based trips, parking will be constrained. The concept (including service plan) should
attract riders to alleviate demand for parking and car-based trips.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 7
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
1.4.3

Page 8
Economic
While more detailed economic cost and benefit analyses would be developed as part of
a business case, the following economic factors were taken into consideration at a high
level.

appropriateness of Capital Cost for Benefits Delivered

reasonableness of Operating Costs

sensibility of Life Cycle Costs

potential for Market Value Uplift and Land Use Activation.
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
2.
Modal characteristics
The following chapter presents the performance characteristics of the four modal
alternatives. The intent is to introduce the modes in the context of the required
characteristics for the short-haul Stirling Glendalough line. No single type of quality transit
system is appropriate for all applications. The potential solution for Stirling should be
determined based on an objective and comprehensive analysis of the alternatives. The
criteria used in this analysis reflect the stated goals of the SCCA and these criteria may differ
from those in other settings, even within Greater Perth.
A mode comparison summary matrix is provided in Appendix A. In addition, a range of
hypothetical operating characteristics, scenarios and costs are presented in Appendix B for
each mode. The costs include capital and operating costs as well as life cycle costs for
various operating scenarios based on potential patronage and service patterns. The latter
determines ultimate equipment needs.
The reader is forewarned not to make generalizations about the performance of the Stirling
system based on international and national averages as presented below and in
Appendices A and B. Costs and performance measures are based on averages from urban
or suburban settings that may not be relevant to the Stirling corridor. The information simply
provides some basic parameters for illustrative purposes. A more detailed concept design
and service plan will need to be developed to more precisely determine costs for the Stirling
LRT.
2.1
Bus on street
Buses are flexible, comparatively cheap
to operate and relatively easy to
implement on city streets. They can
provide a high level of service and if
marketed correctly can help alleviate
congestion and increase the mode split
between private vehicles and public
transport. Buses can be implemented on
a corridor within a short period and can
are flexible enough that changes to
running times, frequency of service and
capacity can be implemented at short
notice (provided that the vehicles are
available). Buses are able to provide the
Photo 2.1
basic public transport function in almost
all applications and are the most common
form of transit mode across Australia and the world.
Conventional bus
However, in terms of attracting significant percentages of people away from private vehicles,
standard buses in regular streets do not compare to other systems with higher priority and/or
perceived public image. Without bus priority measures travelling times can be slow and
journey times long. Close spacing between stops and unpredictable traffic conditions can
reduce the reliability of the service and significantly slow down journey times. Circuitous
routes are generally provided to users with a community type service rather than a dedicated
mass transit service. Therefore, the appeal of buses over other transit modes, particularly for
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 9
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
attracting ‘choice riders’ is considered to be less. Choice riders are those passengers who
can afford to use public transport as opposed to those who need to for physical or financial
reasons.
The average passenger trip length in kilometres for buses in the United States is (American
Public Transportation Fact Book, 2010) is 6.25-kilometres. This reflects that buses operate
primarily in central areas where origins and destinations are closer together.
Table 2.1
Typical Conventional Bus system characteristics
Transit type
Street transit
Typical Maximum Passengers per Hour
4,000
Max. Frequency (vehicle /hr)
60–80
Avg. Passenger Trip Length (km)
6.25
Typical Station Spacing (m)
250–400
Propulsion Energy
Diesel, Euro-Diesel, Natural Gas, Biodiesel, Hydrogen, Hybrid
Environmental Considerations
Noise and street congestion
Technological Maturity
High
2.1.1
Patronage capacity
Standard buses are able to accommodate anywhere from 20 to 110 passenger per vehicle
depending on size and configuration. From a basic level of service, standard buses are able
to provide peak hour capacity of up to 6,600 passengers per direction, however, this is
assuming that services are conducted using articulated buses and operate every minute.
Although this may be possible theoretically, in a realistic situation, the actual capacity would
be slightly lower.
For standard operations in peak hour conditions, buses without significant priority generally
cannot keep to scheduled timetables. Thus when service levels fall below 5 minutes
headways, bunching of services often occurs which results in one bus being overloaded and
running late, while the second bus trailing behind the first with minimal numbers of
passengers. Operating standard buses at one or two minute frequencies using standard
infrastructure also causes issues with passenger loading, bus queuing, road congestion as
well as stop lengths and infrastructure requirements. When the level of service reaches this
degree, the optimum function of the service degrades.
2.1.2
Capital costs
Since standard buses operate on regular roadways, there is minimal infrastructure costs
associated with placing the service in a corridor. Infrastructure costs that should be
considered however include the ability for the road surface to accommodate bus traffic, stop,
seating and passenger shelter infrastructure as well as lighting. These costs are generally
already incorporated within typical designs of major roads and arterials. Vehicle costs range
for $400,000 for a 12.5 m rigid bus to $600,000 for an 18.5 m articulated bus.
Page 10
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
2.1.3
Operational costs
The operating cost of a standard Australian bus can differ from city to city however; the
standard operating cost for a bus is $3.00 to $4.00 Australian dollars per kilometre of
W
operation . Elements such as maintenance, size of vehicle, age, fuel consumption, drivers
wages, management, terrain, type of service (express/all stops) all contribute to the cost of
operating a bus.
2.1.4
Value uplift
There is a direct correlation between access to public transport services and increased
property values. The value uplift of property adjacent or within walking distance (10 minutes)
of conventional bus service is not as measurable as seen with other modes of public
transport. In addition, there is little attraction of new development investment due to
availability of bus service, especially on low- to mid-frequency routes.
2.1.5
Running ways
Buses are able to operate on almost any street environment in major cities. However, the
heavy weights of buses can cause damage to roads which have not been designed to
handle the vehicle weight. Buses operate in standard traffic lanes generally in the kerb side
lane if on multiple lane roads. Considerations should be made regarding pavement strength
and width of lanes when constructing roads to handle buses. Extra attention should be made
around bus stops and areas where buses frequently brake as these surfaces, if not designed
correctly, can lead to warping and uneven road surfaces.
2.1.6
Corridor reservations
Since buses operate in standard roads, there is little requirement for additional corridor
reservations. However, there is a preference for buses to operate in lanes which are around
3.5 m in width. This allows for sufficient room on either side of the vehicle for general
manoeuvring.
2.1.7
Stations
In regards to bus stops and stations, bus stops are generally referred to as standard bus
stops or bays on the side of the road. Bus stations are generally referred to as locations with
larger passenger facilities, where multiple buses operate from and where a transfer between
services by passengers is possible. Bus stops are generally spaced between 250–400 m
apart and are intended to provide maximum coverage to the community as possible. Bus
stops can consist of anything from a single pole or sign on the side of the road to large
passenger shelters with real time passenger next bus information, advertising and
timetables. Some shelters located in harsh weather conditions can also be enclosed and are
air conditioned.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 11
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
2.1.8
Vehicles
Buses come in various shapes, lengths, widths and heights. From small minivan type vehicle
capable of carrying 12 passengers to articulated and double deck buses able to
accommodate over 100 passengers. The variation can be significant; however, standard
buses in Australia are usually 12.0–12.5 m in length for standard single deck rigids and
18.0 m in length for articulated buses. The standard width of a vehicle in Australia is
2.5 m however; this can vary by plus or minus 10 cm.
2.1.9
Other elements
Power source
Buses generally have diesel internal combustion engines, however, in recent year the
advances in technology have lead to new, greener forms of propulsion systems. The
alternatives to diesel include Euro standard diesel, Compressed Natural Gas or CNG,
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD), Bio Diesel, Hybrid Diesel
Electric, Trolley Bus or Electric, Fuel Cell and Hydrogen. However, some technologies are
still in the testing phases while others are mature, costs are still considered to be relatively
high in comparison to the standard diesel bus.
Manufacturers
There are numerous manufactures of standard and custom made buses in Australia. The
most common manufacturers include, MAN, Scania, Renault, Iveco, Mercedes Benz, Volvo,
Mitsubishi and Toyota. In most instances around Australia buses are shipped to Australia in
chassis form and then a bus bodies are manufactured here in Australia to suit the client’s
requirements. Alternatively fully assembled buses can be purchased directly from the
manufacturer.
Loading
Passenger loading is conducted through one or more doors on a standard bus. Generally in
Australia, street buses will consist of one or two doors for a rigid and two to three doors for
an articulated buses. Passenger loading is conducted thought the front drivers door while
unloading is generally via the rear doors. Due to fare payment within the vehicle, the loading
time can vary widely at a station thereby affecting schedule reliability. However, the
introduction of smart card ticketing systems is seeing movement towards loading and
unloading from both doors.
Gradients
In most instances buses are generally able to grades of up to 13–15%, with 10% generally
applied as practical maximum grade. However, grades of this magnitude generally require
more powerful vehicles. CNG buses for example may have the same power to weight ratio
as a standard diesel bus, however, the torque curve and power range alter dramatically
especially when in demanding situations like hilly terrain. Therefore, short steep sections
generally do not affect bus operations, however, longer vertical inclines require operators to
consider the types of vehicle specifications required to operate the service.
Page 12
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Turning radii
The turning radii on most buses would be considered to be good when comparing to other
types of mass transit. However, the turning radii of vehicles can vary depending upon
manufacture, length of vehicle and the floor height of the bus. Generally buses with less than
12 m in length have the greatest turning ability, followed by articulated buses, standard
12.5 m rigids and then tri-axel 14.5 m length buses. Typical road design standards require
that all buses be able to negotiate as 12.5 radius.
2.2
Tram on street
For the purpose of this report, the
definition of tram on street refers to a
tram or light rail vehicle that operate
either in mixed with general traffic or in
mixed use lanes with high occupancy
vehicles or with other modes of public
transport. Terminology in the United
States often refers trams as either
Trolleys or Street Cars. There is often
confusion between the difference
between tram and LRT. The report
defines trams as being smaller, slower
speed, less prioritised, local serving
public transport vehicles which operate
on steel rails.
Photo 2.2
Streetcar (tram) in San Francisco
with parallel bike lane and on-street
parking
Street running systems (SRT/trams) are primarily designed as local area circulators, not to
serve long haul commuter trips. Along SRT corridors, station spacing is typically within
relatively close proximity allowing the LRT to serve as a ‘pedestrian accelerator.’ It can also
be described as a ‘horizontal elevator’, similar to a multi-floor department store, with a
different purpose or function at each station. A well designed SRT route will show good twoway patronage throughout the day as it supports multiple uses, such as shopping during the
day and leisure trips after hours as well as commuter trips during the peaks.
Table 2.2
Typical Street Car/Tram characteristics
Transit type
Street transit
Typical Maximum Passengers per Hour
13,000
Typical Maximum Frequency (trains/hr)
12
Avg. Passenger Trip Length (km)
1.6
Typical Station Spacing (m)
120–240
Propulsion Energy
Diesel, Electric
Environmental Considerations
Street congestion & minor visual impacts
Technological Maturity
High
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 13
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
2.2.1
Patronage capacity
Trams come in varying shapes and forms and therefore their capacity varies significantly
between different applications. Trams can be single carriages, multiple units or coupled sets
ranging from the size of a standard bus to a coupled set of two 40 m length multiple
articulated section trams. Therefore the diverse range of tram types available affect the
passenger capacity of a tram line. With trams capable of carrying up to 530 passengers, the
theoretical peak hour capacity can easily reach 30,000 passengers per direction. However,
most tram lines operate with frequencies of 2–5 minutes thus their capacity is between
3B
7,000 and 16,000 respectively . However, assuming that a standard tram length of 30–40 m
in length is used trams have the capacity for approximately 6,500 passenger per direction
per hour with 2 minute headways.
2.2.2
Capital costs
The indicative range for capital costs per kilometre of track and infrastructure is
approximated to be between $10m and $100m. Examples are provided in Table 2.3 below.
However, a significant proportion of the higher cost projects have incurred these cost due to
considerable infrastructure requirements such as grade separation, tunnelling, utility
relocation and property acquisition. For tram lines which are constructed in new corridors or
retrofitted to existing corridors, the cost of construction decreases. The estimate for the new
Gold Coast Tram line is between $18m and $22m per kilometres. This general figure usually
includes the construction of two tracks, power and signalling infrastructure as well as in most
cases depot construction, road widening or alterations and station infrastructure. Tram
vehicle costs generally range from $4.5 million for a 30 m vehicle to $6.5 million for a
72 m vehicle.
Table 2.3
Adelaide Street Car/Tram characteristics
Tram line
Length
Approximate capital
cost per kilometre
Daily
passengers
Adelaide
Victoria Sq – Glenelg
10.8 km
City Extension
1.4 km
$22.1m
11,500
Entertainment Centre Extension (including
bridge widening)
2.8 km
$35.7m
2,500
Box Hill
2.2 km
$12.7m
Vermont South Extension
3.0 km
$10.2m
Docklands Drive Extension
1.0 km
$7.5m
2
7.2 km
$15.1m
Manchester, UK
37.0 km
$23.4m
55,000
35.0 km
$35.2m
190,000
Downtown Line
3.84 km
$27.6m per kilometre
Extension
0.96 km
$31.2m per kilometre
Melbourne
Sydney
1
Montpellier, France
Portland Streetcar, USA
1
2
3
9,500
3
5,600
http://transporttextbook.com/?p=21
http://epress.anu.edu.au/agenda/004/04/4-4-A-4.pdf
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_por-stc-data-01.htm
Page 14
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
2.2.3
Operation costs
Some studies from around the world have claimed that the operation of trams is cheaper
than the operation of buses because of the different power sources. In some cases this may
be true however, often the operation costs aren’t fully comparable. The typical Australian
average for operational costs in Australia are between $5.00 and $15.00 per vehicle
AH
kilometre . However, like buses and BRT the actual cost can depend on specialised
maintenance, driver wages, management, stop spacing and the power source. There is less
emphasis on terrain and size of vehicle than with buses. However, one consideration that is
often neglected when comparing BRT to trams is the capacity of the vehicle verses the
operating cost. For example to operate a corridor that requires 6,500 passenger per peak
hour, a BRT cost per kilometre would be for 60 articulated buses or 30, 40 m length trams.
Therefore, the amount of drivers required doubles for the same volume of passengers.
2.2.4
Value uplift
Numerous studies have been conducted whereby the property values around tram stations
have increased dramatically. If a high frequency service is provided with a good reputation
and public image, property values can increase by as much as 40% as experienced in
Portland, USACD. Not only does property values increase but so to can rental returns for
office and retail space. Office and retail space rent can be as high as 50% greater around
BM
stations than surrounding arterial roads . In most instances trams have increase property
values between 7% and 25% with a large proportion of these being at the higher end of the
scale.
2.2.5
Running ways
The running ways of trams can be located on numerous different configurations, requiring
the “right solution for the right problem” for each line. In other words, there is no single best
universal solution. It is also important to recognize that tram systems often evolve over time
and preferred running way configurations may change to meet shifting priorities.
Generally trams operate in regular street environments where they are mixed in with regular
traffic (similar to conventional bus service). However, trams are not limited to on street
running. Some tram systems operate around the world using a combination of running ways.
Take Melbourne and Adelaide for example, trams that operate in regular traffic, operate in
segregated corridors within the street or like the St Kilda tram or Glenelg tramway, operate
within their own corridor off street with grade separated or controlled level crossings.
However, trams that operate their majority of service in these separate corridors are referred
to as Light Rail Transit rather than trams.
Trams can operate in the centre of the street, along segregated tracks on each kerb side (for
two way streets), single kerb side for one way streets; and dual track on a single kerbside.
The most common application is centre running due to less conflict with side street traffic, an
improved corner radius, resulting in less land take and the ability to combined infrastructure
such as stations, signalling (if applicable) and overhead centenary wires at a single location.
It generally offers the potential for faster running speed.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 15
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Side running tracks allow for the seamless integration of the platform with the foot path,
public plazas and retail activities, which can help to activate a street. It also allows for the
creation of a narrower street section since platforms can be extended from the footpath in
lieu of a small number of parking spaces. It also allows for integration with a kerbside bike
lane and on street parking as is the case in San Francisco. However, the split kerb side can
be delayed by vehicle turning movements, parking and pick-ups and delivery. The dual track
on a single kerbside, such as in Nantes, France, addresses these concerns. It utilizes a
dedicated right of way which is seamlessly integrated with the footpath and street activities
such as a cappuccino strip.
Trams can also operate in corridors that are shared with other public transport modes.
Examples exist in Europe where trams and buses share corridors in busy inner city
locations. There are also examples where trams and kerb guided BRT systems share the
same corridor.
The most common form of running way bed or trams is either located on slab or concreted
track. However, in older cities found in Europe, often the running way are located in paved or
pebbled track beds.
2.2.6
Corridor reservations
The right of way required to operate trams is generally between 3.1 m and 4.0 m depending
on the situation. This applies to both mixed traffic situations and segregated lane operation.
2.2.7
Stations
There are two station configurations generally used for regular tram stations, central island
platforms or side platforms. There are advantages and disadvantages on each platform
position, however, there is no overall preference for one or the other. The position is
depends on the application to which the tram system is being applied.
Both options are applicable to centre running trams. Centre islands can decrease
construction costs but make it more difficult to share the right of way with buses due to
opposite door configurations. In addition, the resulting median strip is restricted from any
activity. Centre islands are generally raised above, but can be slightly depressed below
street level to create virtual platforms as is the case in Reinach Dorf, Germany. Outside
platforms allow for integration with buses but result in two outside planting strips that cannot
be used for activity. In both cases the, residual strips can be planted to increase visual
amenity, but will require maintenance.
Generally where trams are operating in the central median of a road corridor there is a
tendency to opt for central island platforms as they offer the benefit of reducing the required
width of the corridor as the passenger waiting and loading areas are combined into a single
larger platform rather than two smaller kerb platforms. For trams operating in the kerb lane of
a roadway, the platforms are generally incorporated within the pedestrian footpaths.
A variation on the side platform is a signalized all-stop street stop such as is used in Reinach
Dorf, Germany. The signalized all stops uses the traffic lanes as a platform by stopping all
traffic at a signal prior to the station. This allows the pedestrians the opportunity to cross at
mid-block locations, but works best in low traffic volume situations.
Page 16
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
The overall length of tram platforms varies from system to system. Most systems design
platforms for the largest tram unit that will operate on the system. However, many systems
have grown to a point where platforms are required to be extended to enable larger trams to
serve them. Generally, tram platforms range from 30 m to 80 m in length. However, it should
be noted that if smaller platforms are selected in the initial system, contingencies should be
put in place to ensure that the platforms can be extended if future requirements demand
them to be.
2.2.8
Vehicles
Street running trams can come in many shapes and forms. Older trams are usually single
units and are not wheelchair accessible however, most modern tram are low floor vehicle
and are made up of multiple segments. Both old and new trams can be designed to be
coupled together to operate a longer consist and increase capacity without increasing
frequency. Trams can range in length from 10–12 m for a single section to 55–80 m with
multiple sections. Trams in Budapest operate as either single 7 or 9 section vehicles of 40 or
54 m length or as double length sets (two trams coupled together) of 80 m. It has also been
demonstrated that up to three tram units can be coupled together and successfully operated
as a single 120 m length tram. However, these trams of this length are not practical as
station lengths, operation and manoeuvrability also become difficult with vehicles of this size.
2.2.9
Other elements
Power source
The most commonly used form of power supply is from overhead catenaries wires. However,
technological improvements to power supply delivery has increased dramatically over the
last decade. There are now various forms of power supply that can be used for trams. Some
of the alternative power sauces include, ground based power supply (GBPS), which is
currently extensively used in Bordeaux, France, where the power is drawn from a third rail
that is positioned in the centre of the track. Other alternatives to overhead wires include
standard and nickel-hydrogen batteries where power is recharged at points along the route
or at stations which can then be used to propel the tram when the overhead power supply is
not present. However, these technologies are still developing and the current systems do not
allow for high speed operation.
A new potential emerging technology is electromagnetic power supply. This consists of
transferring power from the power cables buried beneath the rail to the tram vehicle into
magnetic fields which induce an electric current that can be picked up by coils onboard the
tram. This process uses the same technology used to power electric toothbrushes. Currently
the technology is not in commercial operation however, a test track in Augsburg in Germany
CG
is currently under construction .
Manufacturers
There are several manufacturers when it comes to the manufacturing of tram vehicles. They
major manufacturers include Bombardier, Siemens, Alstom, Skoda and INEKON.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 17
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Loading
Trams are designed for cater for large volumes of passenger entering and exiting the
vehicles. A typical tram vehicle is designed to have large open areas and multiple doors. For
a standard 30 m length tram, it typical to have between three and six doors per tram unit
regardless of whether it’s a two or five section tram.
Gradients
Generally most street running trams can operate on gradients of up to 6%. Some trams are
able to have gradients of up to 10%; however, these trams do require traction equipment to
be installed on all axels to achieve this grade.
Turning radii
Depending on the type of tram selected, tram turning radii range from approximately 15 m to
30 m with most manufacturers falling between 18 m and 25 m. Ideally most tram systems
are design for the maximum allowable radius to reduce noise, maintenance and allow for
greater speeds around corners.
2.3
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
The definition of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
can vary significantly when comparing to
different examples across the world. As
shown in Table 2.4 below, BRT can be in
various forms, ranging from very simple to
complex improvements. However, the
elements that identify BRT over standard
bus services is the higher quality of service
provided to passengers, improved reliability
and reduced travel times. BRT systems
often provide users with more frequent
Photo 2.3
Centre island platform along
services over a long period of time and
Eugene, Oregon EmX BRT line
greater capacity to move larger volumes of
passengers. BRT provide fast and efficient
public transport service which are able to get passengers to their destinations while providing
flexibility in relation to routes, services and capacity. More complex BRT systems have been
referred to as ‘light rail on rubber tyres’.
Table 2.4
Range of BRT characteristics
Stations
Roadway
Service plan
Vehicles
Systems
Simplest
‘Super’ stops,
shelter
Mixed traffic,
Queue
jumpers
Single
All-stops line
Buses with
Unique Rte.
ID’s, Head
Signs
Radios,
Electronic fare
boxes
Most
complex
High platforms,
P/R, amenities
services
Fully gradeseparated
Transitway
All-stops,
On-line
expresses,
feeder/
line-haul
Hybrid,
Guided,
Specialized
Vehicle
Central Control
Room, TSP,
CAD,
Smart Cards
Proof of
payment
Source: S Zimmermann, World Bank
Page 18
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Table 2.5
Typical BRT characteristics
Transit type
Semi-rapid transit
Typical Maximum Passengers per Hour
4,000–20,000
Typical Maximum Frequency (veh/hr)
60–80
Avg. Passenger Trip Length (km)
6.0
Typical Station Spacing (m)
400–800
Propulsion Energy
Diesel, Euro-diesel, Natural Gas, Biodiesel, Hydrogen, Hybrid
Environmental Considerations
Noise, visual and minor traffic impacts
Technological Maturity
High
Land Use Integration and Placemaking
Low – High
Market Value Uplift
High (Stations Only)
Average Operating Cost per Seat- kilometre
<> $1
2.3.1
Patronage capacity
BRT systems vary in size and scale from queue jump lanes on arterial roads to major
corridor like in Brisbane Busways in Queensland, Bogota, Columbia and Curitiba in Brazil.
The peak hour capacity of a BRT is dependent on the level of infrastructure invested into the
system and the frequency in which the service operates. For example the Bogota system
A
claims to be able to handle 67,000 passengers per hour in the corridor where as the South
East Busway in Brisbane is now carrying 20,000 passenger per hour in the peak direction
A
and the Adelaide O-Bahn is capable of handling 7,500 passengers . However, the Sydney
Transit Way T80 BRT route operates at up to 5 to 7.5 minute frequencies in peaks with
standard buses with a capacity of approximately 600 passengers per hour. However, the
theoretical capacity is closer to 3,000 to 4,000 passengers per hour and the failure to
introduce integrated service structure is the main reason why demand is not higher.
2.3.2
Capital costs
Like patronage capacity, and as shown in Table 2.6 below, the capital costs of the BRT
network can vary dramatically depending upon the application. If queue jump lanes and
signal priority are the only infrastructure built then the construction cost per kilometre can
AF 5
range between a $0.25m to just under $2.0m . However, should the BRT system feature
grade separated crossings, elevated structures or tunnels then the cost can increase up to
CH
$158m per kilometre such as the Inner Northern Busway in Brisbane .
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 19
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Table 2.6
Existing BRT characteristics
BRT line
Adelaide O-Bahn
Length
Approximate Capital
Cost per kilometre
Daily passengers
12.0 km
$8.2m
30,000
16.5 km
$22.4m
150,000
Brisbane
South East Busway
Northern Busway
$104m
Inner Northern Busway
$158m
55,000
Sydney Transitway
31.0 km
$11.2m
Curitiba BRT
60.0 km
$1.5
Bogota BRT
84.0 km
$7.4m – 16.6m
1,600,000
Istanbul BRT
47.0 km
$2.0 – $11.0m
850,000
2.3.3
Operational costs
Since most BRT systems use standard buses, the operating costs for these vehicle are very
similar to that of regular city buses. However, specialised BRT systems such as the Adelaide
O-Bahn or the optically guided busways in Europe have slightly higher the maintenance
costs than standard vehicles. These additional costs can however, be offset by the benefits
of improved running performance and reduced kilometre costs by increased efficiency.
AE 7
Therefore bus operating costs can vary from $3.00 per kilometre to $19.00 kilometre .
2.3.4
Value uplift
There have been several studies around the world which have examined the property value
increases that BRT systems have on surrounding neighbourhoods. Some BRT systems
around the world have recorded significant growth in property values; Brisbane is often cited
as a good example of how BRT has influenced values. Properties around the Brisbane BRT
BO
have recorded increases of up to 20% when compared to surrounding suburbs . However,
the Brisbane BRT is a highly prioritised BRT system that has very high service frequencies.
Growth on property values along corridors with standard dedicated bus lanes and small
scale bus priority are unlikely to attract such high levels of value uplift.
2.3.5
Running ways
BRT does not necessarily mean a bus that operates on a segregated busway. There are
numerous examples around the world that demonstrate the various forms of BRT operation.
Some of the best known examples of BRT are located in Bogota, Columbia and Curitiba,
Brazil; however, these two systems have been designed to move large volumes of
passengers over relatively long distances. They operate completely in their own right of way
with mostly at-grade intersections
Page 20
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
The Adelaide O-Bahn, is an example of a guided busway designed to serve long distance
commuters. This system operated in its own right of way (specially fitted vehicle are only
able to use the guideway), is fully grade separated, has limited stops and a narrow corridor
(approximately 8.0-metres). The guideway and limited stop spacing enable high operating
and running speeds (average 50–60 km/h operation with maximum 100 km/h operating
speeds).
The Brisbane busways are dedicated roadways that allow buses to travel at higher speeds
without the restrictions of other general traffic and congestion. The South Eastern busway
operates along the South East Freeway in dedicated grade separated lanes. Parts of the
South Eastern Busway also operate in dedicated bus only tunnels.
The Sydney Transitway (T-Way for short) has three main lines and a total length of about
60-kilometres. The first line from Liverpool to Parramatta operates in a segregated right of
way (in a former road reserve) for about two-thirds of its 30-kilometre length with the
remainder featuring dedicated on-road
T-way lanes. The Northwest T-way
runs besides major arterial roads as
well as on street full time bus lanes.
The Orange BRT Line in Los Angeles,
USA, operates on dedicated lanes
however, has at grade crossings
which are prioritised for the BRT.
Although, many of the world’s
examples involve high levels of capital
expenditure, BRT can also refer to
simpler, cheaper options such as bus
priority lanes, queue jump lanes at
congestion hotspots and/or bus
priority phasing at intersections. In
several systems, dedicated bus lanes
are shared with cyclists, motorbikes
and/or taxis to make more efficient use
of the right of way.
2.3.6
Photo 2.4
Fully dedicated BRT corridor
Corridor reservations
The corridor of a BRT system can vary significantly depending upon the type of system
adopted. Generally, for dedicated bus lane a 3.0 m to 3.5 m width kerb lane is an adequate
width to accommodate most BRT vehicles. For BRT systems operating in central medians or
within their own right of way, a 3.5 m to 4.0 m corridor width is recommended. However, as
the speed of the BRT increases so too does the required road width. Guided systems can
operate at higher speeds in smaller corridors however, require greater amounts of
infrastructure. The overall corridor width also will significantly increase at stations unless they
are integrated within the roadside pedestrian realm.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 21
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
2.3.7
Stations
In most BRT systems around the world, the spacing between stations is generally greater
than regular bus services. Station spacing is typically between 500–600 m compared with
the standard 250–400 m. However, on the long distance commuter based systems, station
spacing is similar to LRT or train station spacing of 1 km to 5 km. Stations are also designed
to cater for larger amounts of vehicles, greater areas (often sheltered) for passenger waiting
and improved security and public transport information (Intelligent Transport Systems
technology). Systems like Bogota and Curitiba include fully enclosed platforms with screen
doors to replicate a metro style boarding system as well as having ticketed waiting areas,
requiring passengers to purchase tickets prior to entering the station but allowing for multiple
door loading and unloading.
Stations can be in various shapes and forms ranging from single or double bus bays
platforms to multiple zone catering for 10–20 buses. The size of the station depends on the
amount of throughput and whether the station is an interchange to other services. Stations
can also be designed with overtaking lanes to cater for express buses or skip stop services.
Systems in Bogota, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney all allow for buses to pass each other at
stations, whereas systems in Curitiba do not allow this. The benefit of allow buses to
overtake at stations enables overtaking of other services which may require longer
passenger loading time, operate on an express or skip stop pattern or have broken-down.
However, overtaking lanes significantly increase the land area and right of way required for
each station.
Most BRT stations are kerb side loading, meaning that standard buses are able to use both
the BRT stations as well as regular road side kerbs bus stops. However, some systems
provide centre island platforms in which case the vehicles are specially designed for the BRT
only. Some BRT's even have doors on both side of the vehicle for dual side loading or ability
to use centre or side running platforms. Centre island platforms provide the ability to merge
and reduce the overall required space for passenger loading, thus removing the space
required for each station and therefore the overall corridor width is less. However, centre
island platforms do provide issues in terms of types of buses that can be used or the
operation of the BRT. Istanbul, Turkey operate standard buses on their BRT whilst using
centre platforms. However, buses are required to operate on the opposite side of the corridor
(or run again the standard traffic flow).
2.3.8
Vehicles
There can be a significant variation between different types of vehicles that use BRT
systems. Floor heights are an essential component to any BRT. Most BRT systems around
the world utilise low floor or fully low floor (all seating and entry points are at the same
height) buses. Older systems such as the Adelaide O-Bahn still use high floor buses with
steps however, most of these vehicles are gradually being replaced with low floor models.
The South American examples of BRT use fully high floor vehicles with high floor platforms.
These buses remain fully accessible with same level boarding with all stations being fully
accessible.
Buses can also come in various shapes, lengths and styles. The BRT systems in operation
in Australia use standard rigid and articulated vehicles that can penetrate regular streets.
Systems in the Los Angeles and Las Vegas in the United States have special stylised
vehicles which are sleek, modern and are different to standard city buses, thus giving the
impression of a premium service similar to a metro, tram or LRT. Buses can also be of
Page 22
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
varying lengths, again in Australia standard rigid and articulated buses are used (12.5 m and
18.5 m in length respectively), however, BRT systems in Europe and South America use
24 m length double articulated vehicles. These vehicles have a much greater capacity
however; their size can restrict their operation to BRT systems only.
Finally there are also several forms of guided vehicle currently in operation on BRT systems.
There are three forms of guided bus systems currently around the world. Firstly is the
mechanically guided O-Bahn, this system relies on small horizontal wheels running against a
solid kerb or guideway. This system has proven to be reliable but maintenance costs of
vehicles can be an issue. The benefit to the system is higher speed operation, up to
100 km/h or more and a narrower corridor (8.5 m). The system does have a few drawbacks,
firstly there is a significant increase in capital costs and secondly all large crossings must be
grade separated. The second guidance system is optical or magnetically guided buses,
these buses rely on guidance systems placed both in the bus and within the pavement to
guide the vehicle. These systems with are mostly operating in Europe are better suited
to lower speed, confined, inner city operation.
2.3.9
Other elements
Power source
Most BRT systems around Australia and the world utilise standard diesel powered buses.
The new buses that are introduced into Australian BRT systems generally meet the strict
standards that have been applied in Europe on emissions standards (Euro V). However,
there are a wide variety of bus options that can be used for BRT vehicles. The second most
common form is Compressed Natural Gas which again is widely available in most Australian
cities, including Perth. However, greener technologies are being applied to the bus
manufacturing industry and more and more alternative options are becoming available.
These include hydrogen, fuel cell, electric and bio-diesel. However, the maturity of these
alternatives is relatively low and system wide operations are generally uncommon. Another
alternative to an onboard fuel supply is to operate electric buses using overhead wiring
systems. However, this option increases the capital cost of construction and has similar
visual amenity issues to Trams and LRT.
Manufacturers
Since in most instances BRT vehicle are similar if not the same as standard buses, most
manufacturers who build standard buses will be able to supply BRT vehicles, this includes
some manufacturers who provide stylised vehicles especially for BRT systems.
Loading
In most instances on Australian BRT systems passenger are loaded from the front door with
passengers exiting any door. Standard buses are equipped with one to three doors and
articulated buses equipped with two to four or five doors. Double articulated buses used in
Bogota and Curitiba can have as many as seven doors. Since the South American systems
have been designed for large passenger volumes, all stations are ticket controlled and
require passengers to have tickets. This also enables the vehicles to be loaded and
unloaded from any door. This simultaneous boarding and alighting system from any door
radically reduces stationary time at stops, thus increasing the passenger throughput per
hour.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 23
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Gradients
The maximum achievable gradient for BRT buses is similar to that of standard buses.
However, long inclines using double articulated buses can cause some issues with
increased running times and the physical loading on the engine. It should also be noted that
larger volumes of passengers per vehicle also affect the ability for vehicle to accelerate or
maintain speed up inclines.
Turning radii
Like standard buses, BRT also have similar turning radii’s. However, double articulated
buses may require larger turning circles and clearances than standard rigid and articulated
vehicles.
2.4
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
As previously mention there is often confusion
between trams and LRT. For the purpose of
this report, Light Rail Transit or LRT will be
referred to as LRT vehicle with operates either
within a dedicated corridor either with the road
corridor or within its own reserve. LRT can also
refer to elevated or underground systems. For
example the fully automated Docklands Light
Rail in London or the Dubai Metro is considered
to light rail transit rather than metro services.
Figure 2.1
Centre median running LRT
There can be similarities between the two
with outside platforms in
definitions and even in some cases a system
Portland, Oregon
can be both. For example the Glenelg tram line
in Adelaide operates as a tram in mixed traffic in Glenelg before becoming an LRT running in
a dedicated reserve with level or grade separated crossings, the line then reverts back to a
tram when running through part of the city centre, again operating in mixed traffic before
returning to LRT half way through the city when it operates in a dedicated centre lane within
the road reserve.
Table 2.7
Page 24
Typical LRT characteristics
Transit type
Semi-rapid transit
Typical Maximum Passengers per Hour
9,000–32,000
Typical Maximum Frequency (trains/hr)
12
Avg. Passenger Trip Length (km)
6.4
Typical Station Spacing (m)
240–5000
Propulsion Energy
Diesel, Electric
Environmental Considerations
Moderate visual impacts and additional right of way
Technological Maturity
High
Land Use Integration and Placemaking
Moderate
Market Value Uplift
High (Stations Only)
Average Operating Cost per Seat - Kilometre
<$1
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
2.4.1
Patronage capacity
Trams and LRT have very similar capacities in terms of both passengers per vehicle and
passengers per hour. However, the general difference between trams and LRT vehicles is
their size and capacity per individual vehicle is generally greater than that of a street running
tram. The added benefit of LRT systems is that often they are segregated from regular traffic
but are not limited to operating with traffic. Due to the exclusive right of ways LRT systems
are able to operate more frequently with less congestion, improved performance and hence
larger passenger throughput. LRT systems can achieve peak hour passenger very similar to
trams however, the slight increase in passengers per vehicle and the ability to have longer
vehicle stipulates that LRT systems can achieve a throughput of between 30,000 and
40,000 passengers per hour. However, this requires high levels of vehicles per hour and
high priority within the corridor.
2.4.2
Construction costs
LRT systems operate in their own segregated corridor, meaning that construction costs can
increase or decrease dramatically depending upon the application. For LRT systems
operating in their own corridor away from roads and crossings, costs can be as little as
$10m per kilometre. However, when LRT systems are placed in road reservations, costs can
quickly increase. This is also the case when LRT systems are constructed above or below
grade or where grade separated intersections are required. Generally the construction costs
of LRT are similar to BRT if they are being proposed in a similar application.
Table 2.8
Existing LRT system characteristics
LRT line
Length
Denver, USA
4
South West Corridor
13.92 km (plus central
line 8.48 km)
30.56 km
36.32 km
South East Corridor
East Corridor
West Corridor
Gold Line
4
5
6
7
8
9
Portland, USA
Blue Line MAXX
Red Line MAXX
Yellow Line MAXX
28.8 km
8.8 km
9.3 km
Salk Lake City, USA
16.96 km
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
75.0 km
8
Approximate capital
cost per kilometre
Daily
passengers
$43.74m
22,500
$34.33m
$25.91m
$43.74m
$59.34m
32,000
66,300
5
25,700
13,600
6
7
$37.66m
9,500
$50.0m
59,347
9
http://www.cfte.org/success/success_denver.pdf
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2007q2.htm#POR_20070426
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_por_2007-07a.htm
http://www.fta.dot.gov/regional_offices_9054.html
http://dubaimetro.eu/about-dubai-metro
http://dubaimetro.eu/featured/3751/dubai-metro-mall-of-the-emirates-station-lifts-the-most-number-of-passengers
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 25
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
2.4.3
Operation costs
Trams and LRT are very similar in nature and often trams car purchased can be used for
either tramway or an LRT system. Therefore, the general costs of a tram would be similar to
an LRT.
2.4.4
Value uplift
Like trams LRT systems have a dramatic effect on property values around stations and the
corridor. LRT systems are more likely to attract development and increase property values
more than conventional bus transit systems. This is due to the fact the LRT systems are
seen as more a ‘Mass Transit’ style service rather than a regular public transport service.
The segregated right of ways and their ability to overtake congestion provide the public with
a perception that they are a more exclusive mode of transport. LRT systems also have
higher reliability and are often stylized to improve their image. These characteristic all
contribute as a catalyst to development as well as having significant increases to
surrounding property values.
2.4.5
Running ways
LRT systems generally operate in their own right of ways either within road corridors or
within their own right of way. Like trams and BRT systems there are three locations that LRT
tracks can operate. Centre of the road, split to the kerb lanes or double tracks on one side of
the corridor. Generally LRT systems, if operating in streets, operate in the central median.
This allows for greater operation flexibility and increases the radii's required to manoeuvre
the LRT vehicles around corners. Since LRT vehicles are often longer than trams, larger
corner radii's of 25 m or more are required.
2.4.6
Corridor reservation
The downside to operating LRT in dedicated lanes in a road corridor is that the additional
space required for the LRT system can increase the land required for the corridor. Since LRT
operate in a dedicated lane, if a barrier or median is placed between the general street traffic
and the LRT tracks, the corridor can increase from the standard 3.5 m per lane to 4.0 or
5.0 m per track. This creates issues when reservations are tight as the corridor often
requires 8.0 m to 10.0 m for dual tracks, not including stations.
2.4.7
Stations
Like regular street running trams there are two forms of stations commonly used for LRT
systems. They are centre island platforms and side running platforms. The lengths of the
platforms are also very similar, with most LRT and tram vehicle being the same overall
length. The one difference between the two types of station platforms is their height. Some
LRT systems operate with high floor trams which require high floor platforms. However, as
most modern cities look for the latest low floor technology, platform heights are generally the
same.
Page 26
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
2.4.8
Vehicles
LRT vehicles, like trams come in various shapes and forms. Most LRT vehicles are slightly
larger than street running trams. Generally trams are between 2.3 m to 2.65 m in width,
depending upon the application LRT vehicles can be as wide as 3.2 m however, most
common examples are around 2.65 m. It should also be noted that the wider the LRT vehicle
the greater number of passengers they are able to carry however, larger vehicles are harder
to manoeuvre within city streets. Some LRT vehicle can be as long as 20.0 m or more,
however, like the width of the tram; longer vehicles increase the corner radii required.
However, most modern LRT vehicles are made up of multiple sections that can be coupled
together. The San Diego LRT often operates their 27.7 m length LRT vehicles in two or three
sets. The other main difference between trams and LRT is that LRT vehicle are often
designed to achieve higher running speeds. LRT systems can often reach up to
110 km/h where as trams are typically designed for 70 km/h operation.
2.4.9
2.4.9 Other elements
Power source
Like trams, most LRT systems draw power from centenary overhead wires. However, the
major difference between trams and LRT is that most LRT vehicles operate using 1.5 kAC
rather than the common 750 vDC. This is due to LRT operating at higher speeds in the
dedicated corridors. This increased speed and generally higher vehicle weights require a
larger power source. Some LRT systems use third rail technology, however, these systems
are generally fully grade separated and are not used in regular street running. Alternatively,
in recent years technology has allowed for diesel operated LRT routes. This alleviates the
requirement for overhead wires or third rail power supplies.
Manufacturers
Like street running trams, the main manufacturers for LRT vehicles are the same. The major
companies include Bombardier, Siemens, Alstom, Skoda and INEKON.
Loading
LRT vehicles are often designed to serve more the commuter function rather than the local
serving street running trams. Therefore, the amount of passengers boarding and alighting at
each stop is generally less. Therefore, most LRT vehicle are designed with maximum
seating configurations rather than more doors for fastest boarding times. However, LRTs are
not limited to this. It is more common to have between two and four doors per 30 m unit
rather than up to six doors like street running trams. Depending on the LRT vehicle selected,
the ability to load and unload at stations may cause issues at busy stations during peak
periods.
Gradients
Generally most LRT vehicles can operate on grades of up to 6%, however, typically LRTs
are designed with lower grades for faster operation. Specialised LRT vehicles could reach
grades of up to 10% if additional traction equipment is fitted.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 27
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Turning radii
Due to LRT vehicle being larger than street running trams, the turning radii for these vehicles
is often larger than a trams. Most LRT vehicle requires radii’s of 18.0 m or more however,
the standard turning radii for an LRT is 25.0 m.
2.5
Emerging technology – trams on tyres
TransLohr is a relatively new form of public transport technology. TransLohr combines the
advantages of rubber tyres, guided vehicles and electric propulsion. There are currently
seven cities around the world that have chosen TransLohr as their chosen transport
technology, these include Clermont-Ferrand, France, Tianjin, China, Padua, Italy, Venice,
Italy, Shanghai, China, Paris, France and Châtillon, France.
The TransLohr technology combines various aspects of standard buses, BRT, Trams and
LRT. TransLohr vehicle look and feel like a tram or LRT, this is an advantage as the
passenger perception about them would be considered higher than a standard bus or even
BRT. Also due to their rubber tyres they are more adaptable for hilly terrain and require less
road bed and ground level service infrastructure. The TransLohr vehicles are also able to
negotiate a tighter curve which makes them ideal for narrow, confined corridors.
TransLohr is a proprietary technology. Investment in such a system, limits the transit
provider to vehicles manufactured solely by TransLohr. This raises concerns as to the long
term viability of the system, cost competition among manufacturers and technological
maturity.
2.5.1
Patronage capacity
TransLohr has the ability to meet the same capacity requirements as most BRT, tram and
LRT corridor. TransLohr vehicles are able to accommodate a maximum of 345 passengers
on a 46 m length vehicle. They are able to operate at frequencies similar to trams, therefore,
4
the capacity ranges from 10,000 to 20,000 passengers per hour .
2.5.2
Capital costs
Unlike trams and LRT, the ground level infrastructure required for a TransLohr is
considerably less. Since the vehicles operate using a single central guideway and run on
rubber tyres, the cost to construct the ground on which they operate is less. TransLohr
running track requires only 20–30 cm of track bed compared to an estimated 70 cm to
1 m for standard LRT and trams. This reduction in track surfacing reduces the cost of
construction to less than $10m per kilometre for standard applications to $46m in corridors
with high levels of infrastructure like utility relocation and grade separation.
Page 28
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Table 2.9
Existing TransLohr systems - Costs
Cost
Euros
Length
Vehicles
Cost AUD
Vehicle
Vehicle
cost
Capital
cost
ClermontFerrand, France
€150.00m
14.50 km
20
$217.50m
STE4
$69.60
$147.90
Padua, Italy
€90.00m
10.30 km
16
$130.50m
STE3
$51.04
$79.46
Venice, Italy
€200.00m
20.00 km
20
$290.00m
STE4
$69.60
$220.40
Tianjin, China
€68.00m
8.00 km
8
$98.60m
STE3
$25.52
$73.08
Shanghai, China
€80.00m
9.00 km
9
$116.00m
STE3
$28.71
$87.29
Operating cost
€5.00m
1.00 km
1
$7.25
STE2
€2.00m
$2.90m
STE3
€2.20m
$3.19m
STE4
€2.40m
$3.48m
STE5
€2.60m
$3.77m
Source: Email by olivier.brihaye@translohr.com (7 June 2010) to Peter Wong (PB)
2.5.3
Operational costs
The overall operating costs of the technology have not yet been documented publically.
However, based on the electric propulsion system, it may be assumed that the operating
costs for the technology would be similar to that of standard trams or LRT vehicles.
However, there may be increased cost per vehicle kilometre as the rubber tyres of the
vehicle increase friction between the road surface and the tram thus requiring additional
power to accelerate and maintain operating speeds.
2.5.4
Value uplift
As TransLohr technology is relatively new to the industry, detailed market studies on the
current three systems that are in current operation have not yet been conducted. However,
assuming that the system offers the same operational characteristics as trams and/or LRT,
it is reasonable to assume that the value uplift returns would be similar.
2.5.5
Running way
The running way for TransLohr vehicles are similar to that of trams on street. The width of
the vehicles are similar and the positioning within the road corridor as also alike. Since
TransLohr vehicles are on rubber tyre, there is a slightly wider path in which is needed for
tyres. The guiding device is located in the centre of the running way and consists of a single
track in which the guidance system is attached to. Like trams and LRT the TransLohr can
operate on surfaces such as grassed track beds, concrete slabs or in standard roadways.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 29
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Complications have been noted on the existing systems regarding running way wear and
tear which has required replacement. Since the rubber tyres are in a fixed location, unlike
BRT, the continuous forces placed upon the pavement where the tyres operate have caused
degradation to the running way. Also cities such as Padua, Italy have had several issues in
regard to daily maintenance of the single track, as the track must be cleaned of debris before
operation. In addition, there have been issues with derailments and safety problems for both
push bike cyclists and motor cyclists due to the angled groove.
2.5.6
Corridor requirements
Like LRT and trams, the TransLohr system operates in a similar corridor. TransLohr vehicle
can operate in either mixed traffic, shared with other modes of public transport or can
operate in their own segregated corridor.
2.5.7
Stations
Due to TransLohr vehicles being of similar shape, size and length to regular trams or LRT
vehicles, TransLohr stations and platforms are also of similar dimensions. Stations can either
be centre or side located and the length can range from 20 m to 50 m. The major
differentiation between TransLohr and trams or LRT is that the station height can be as low
as 25 cm rather than the standard 30–35 cm for regular trams or LRT vehicles.
2.5.8
Vehicles
TransLohr vehicles come in one standard model which can range in length from a three unit
set of 25-metres to a six unit set of 46 m. The capacity of the vehicle range from
170 passengers to 345 total passengers respectively. The greatest benefit to these vehicles
is the almost silent operation when running on street, the noise produced is noticeably lower
than standard trams and LRT vehicle as the rubber tyres do not have wheel squeal when
turning corners.
2.5.9
Other elements
Power source
There are currently one power supply used for TransLohr vehicle, however, obtaining the
electricity to operate the vehicles is done in two methods. The first method is the standard
catenary system used with trams and LRT system. The second is known as WiPost. This
technology basically removes the overhead wires from the system and replaces them with
long conducting horizontal poles on the roof of the vehicles. As the tram passes the light pole
or power pole, this conducting mechanism draws power from the pole. Each pole is spaced
evenly along the corridor with spacing less than the length of the tram to ensure that power
is supplied to the vehicle at all times. However, this does become an issue at corners and
when crossing roadways or sections where poles cannot be located. The second technology
also being used, but not exclusive to TransLohr, is the use of onboard rechargeable battery
systems. This allows the vehicle to charge while in normal running then draw upon the
stored power for sections where overhead wires are not used.
Page 30
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Manufacturers
Currently there is only one manufacturer that is producing vehicles for the TransLohr system,
this is Lohr industries. Unlike the other modes examined, having a single manufacturer can
have issues in terms of flexibility and market competition which can result in increased costs
in the longer term. For example the purchase of additional vehicles or the replacement of
vehicles at the end of their life for a system may be more expensive than other modes of
public transport due to the uniqueness of the technology.
Loading
TransLohr vehicles, like trams and LRT have multiple doors for loading and unloading
passengers. Current designs for TransLohr vehicle have one door per unit per side.
However, as the technology progresses the ability to customise the vehicle to include more
or less access points will become available.
Gradients
The benefit of TransLohr vehicle is their ability to climb steep grades. The vehicles are able
to climb grades of up to 13% thanks to the rubber tyres. The electric traction motors also
enable the vehicle to climb longer distances than standard buses. This makes the TransLohr
suitable for hilly terrain.
Turning radii
TransLohr also have a strong advantage over standard tram and LRT vehicles, the
TransLohr vehicle is able to negotiate curve radii’s of as little as 10.5 m. This is considerably
less than trams and LRT and is comparable to standard and articulated buses. This makes
TransLohr adaptable to confined corridors with tight corners. The small radii also facilitate in
the reduction of space required for storage and maintenance of TransLohr vehicles. This
ultimately results in less land requirements and a reduction in construction costs.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 31
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
3.
Value capture
One of the hurdles to implementation of quality transit corridors is the large capital
investment required by transit infrastructure owners, service providers and local authorities
to provide the necessary service and amenities. Revenue from transit services rarely covers
capital cost of infrastructure, even over a very long pay-back period, so the majority of
funding is normally provided from general tax revenue.
Evidence from built projects clearly illustrates the effect of permanent transit infrastructure on
land value is considerable. Value gained by landowners and businesses near transit services
can be captured and used to fund transit improvements As a result, governments around the
globe recognize that an address near a transit station is a good one. Properties within 400 m
of a transit station enjoy improvements in land values of over 50% in comparison to locations
away from transit(i) In general, the more accessible a property is to transit, the higher its
value.
Business income and revenue and rental return within these precincts is also higher than for
those away from transit. There are many examples where this increase in ‘value’ is captured
and used to fund transit projects. One example is the Hong Kong rail transit system. It pays
all of its costs with value captured from development in station areas.
The potential uplift as well as the catalytic effect of permanent transit infrastructure is
discussed by mode in Section 2 above. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the
mechanisms available for value capture, including:

Joint Development

Benefited Area Charges

Tax Increment Financing

Revenue Sharing

Developer Contributions

Parking Surcharges

Transit User Fees

Density Bonuses.
Each applies to different sectors in the community and for different components of the
infrastructure or service, and each rewards different parties for their part in providing transit.
These mechanisms work best when applied together as part of a coordinated strategy.
A number of the potential value capture mechanisms and their application in Stirling are
described below. Some of these mechanisms would require changes to state legislation to
be used in Stirling, and this is noted. For this purpose, transit service providers and transit
infrastructure owners are assumed to be government.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 33
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
3.1
Joint development
Joint development is the simplest and most easily applicable form of value capture. It is
development of land within the transit precinct by or partly by the government. The value of
development increase is captured directly by the government through its involvement in
development. Joint development has many variations, and can involve the government as
land owner, as an investor in development, or both. Usually the government will partner with
a commercial developer. The value of joint development is two-fold in that it provides real
estate returns, but it also facilitates transit ridership (and therefore revenue) by stimulating
development in transit precincts.
As a land owner, the government is able to participate in joint development for the station
site and surrounds (including volumetric space above and below station infrastructure) as
well as any unrelated government land assets within the transit precincts. Government can
also actively acquire land within transit zones for this purpose. Acquisition of land prior to
realisation of transit infrastructure affords the greatest financial gain. Extra gain can also be
achieved through the acquisition of small, fragmented parcels over a long period of time.
These can be used to facilitate partnerships with developers at a later time. Sites used as
construction staging areas prime sites for later joint development.
As an investor, the government can contribute funds to development to assist developers to
realise a site’s potential, and to reduce their risk. In return, the government is able to benefit
from sale profits. Joint development requires significant up front costs by the government
and has financial risks for both the developer and government.
3.2
Benefitted areas charges
Areas of existing development around new or improved transit facilities that will benefit from
new transit infrastructure and services can be subject to benefitted area charges. Benefitted
areas are areas of existing development around stations with new or improved services that
benefit from increased value and revenue as a result of those services.
The charges apply to an area along a transit line or around a station in which property
owners agree to pay annual assessments over a period of time in exchange for public
physical improvements. A key aspect of this tool is that they typically require a majority vote
of the affected property owners as a condition of adoption. The amount of the assessment
must directly relate to the cost of the improvement and the benefit gained by the property
owner.
The districts offer the benefit of capturing the financial return with low or risk. In order for the
jurisdiction to get the funds up front to pay for the improvements, municipal bonds, typically
30-years, are issued and the assessments pay back the bonds. The Los Angeles County
MTA is one example of a transit agency using a benefit assessment district raised
$130 million, or 9% of the funds for the Segment 1 of the Metro Red (A) Line.
This is a mechanism available only to local jurisdictions. This mechanism would be useful
when a local authority wanted to inject investment into existing area with existing or new
transit. However, if a local authority wished to provide financial support the state government
to provide major new infrastructure, this mechanism could be used.
Page 34
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
In the United States, benefitted areas charges are the most common value capture strategy
used to fund the costs of new transit, especially for light rail. When used to fund transit
facilities, a tiered assessment rate, based on proximity to the line, is commonly used. Owner
occupied residential properties are typically exempt from the charges to avoid burdensome
taxes and to reduce the number of votes needed to approve the district.
The tool is easier to implement for smaller geographic areas and within single jurisdictions
due to this support requirement. Areas with a significant number of property owners who
plan to develop or redevelop their parcels are likely areas for these charges. Such owners
are typically more motivated to participate in infrastructure investments that will enhance the
value of their property or make development financially possible where it would not be
(e.g. due to parking requirements that can be waived due to the new transit line).
The Brisbane City Council’s Suburban Centres Improvement Program (SCIP) uses
benefitted areas charging as a mechanism to fund local streetscape and public works
improvements in suburban centres.
3.3
Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) involves the fixing of the assessed rates value in a defined
area that is given to general rates revenue for a period (e.g. ten years) and using any
additional revenue from increased property values to fund transit infrastructure or local
improvements. Where the local authority cannot pre-fund the improvements themselves,
they are sometimes able to borrow against the future assessed rates value. It is particularly
useful in areas that suffer from a lack of investment due to high development risks and low
returns on investment, or for projects that require place-making infrastructure (streetscapes,
sidewalks, parks). These areas require short term investments that have long term return.
Unlike benefitted areas charges, the principal purpose of a TIF district is to encourage new
development. Consequently, the goals of most TIF projects are typically broader than a
single transit investment. The districts can also play a key role in generating ridership
through pedestrian and streetscape improvements, and investments that increase the
viability of transit oriented development around stations.
The districts capture the total value of growth in property taxes in a designated area. Thus,
new development has a much greater impact on tax revenue than growth in value of existing
properties.
This is a mechanism available only to local authorities. However, if a local authority wished
to provide financial support the government to provide major new infrastructure, this
mechanism could also be used.
Case Study – Transit Revitalization Investment Districts
In 2005, the State of Pennsylvania in the United States authorized the use of Tiffs in Transit
Revitalization Investment Districts (TRIDS) around transit stations. The purpose of the tool is
to promote TOD and transportation improvements near transit stops. The legislation allows
transit agencies to work cooperatively with local jurisdictions to create Tiffs and to share in
the value capture. A transit agency may acquire property within the district for real estate
development or joint development.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 35
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
3.4
Revenue sharing
Transit service providers and transit facility owners can enter into revenue sharing
arrangements with developers and land owners to help fund transit infrastructure and service
improvements. Examples include:
Facility connection/station interface fee – A fee charged by the transit facility owner to the
tenant or owner of a retail tenancy or shopping centre for connection of the tenancy or
shopping centre with the station concourse or other facilities where increased patronage and
therefore financial gain can be demonstrated. The fee can be based on rental return.
New development contributions – Infrastructure contributions charged by local authorities
for new development is the established form of cost sharing for local infrastructure in Stirling.
Transit impact fee – a fee charged to new development that has a high percentage of
transit users (e.g. office building) where increased use of facilities can be demonstrated.
3.5
User fees
Car parking surcharge – A surcharge is applied to paid car parking charges across the
transit precinct. Revenue is directed into transit or other related improvements.
Transit rider fee – A fee charged by the transit service provider or transit facility owner to
the transit rider on top of the trip fare for use of specific infrastructure or services that
improve the rider experience. This is similar to tolling a road improvement. This could be
implemented through selective movement of zoning boundaries, or general increase in fares
for use of improved services (e.g. use of a busway v on-street bus). Alternative routes and
services might need to be considered to ensure that the service remains equitable. Service
fees can also be charged between transit service providers and transit facility owners, if
these parties are different.
3.6
Other Innovations
Other innovative strategies that could be explored include the following:
Page 36

Grant density bonuses to developers who contribute to rail implementation.

Establish public-private consortium responsible for both rail infrastructure and station
district real estate.

Government assets - redevelopment of government assets is an excellent
opportunity to catalyse development at the same time as capitalising the value of
these assets. Possible assets to be disposed of or used as demonstration projects
include the state owned land reserved for the Stephenson Highway.

Land acquisition – the Government has powers under various pieces of legislation
to acquire land for its community purposes. Some of these powers (e.g. for
transport infrastructure) could be used to acquire land at stations to ensure that
these are integrated with above ground development. Legislation could also be
amended to allow the Government to acquire land for community development.
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2

Street/public space improvements – the Stirling Council can invest money in public
works to improve the pedestrian environment in public places around the stations.
This will contribute greatly to the attractiveness and usability of these areas and
support the pedestrian and transit oriented environment.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 37
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
4.
Refined patronage forecasts – TODTrips
model
4.1
Background
As part of the Stirling City Centre (SCC) - Light Rail Feasibility – Phase 2 study, PB
conducted a desktop assessment of five alternative modal and operating environments
options that could be available to serve the SCC. The range of options starts from bus on
street, street car (tram on street), bus and light rail in exclusive lanes with priority (BRT and
LRT) and light rail on single side (LRT sided).
This chapter summarizes the development of the public transport model using PB’s
TODTrips package to estimate number of passenger trips for the 2031 proposed land use
plan and ridership of the five alternative modes. Five alternative modal scenarios were
analysed including:

Base case with 2031 bus option

Street Car

LRT

BRT

LRT (Single sided).
Each scenario is further described in Section 4.3 below. Additional detail into the modelling
assumptions and methodology is provided in the TODTrips Working Paper provided in
Appendix D.
4.2
TODTrips model
The TODTrips model has been developed for the study area in consultation with the Stirling
Alliance team. Input from other stakeholders has also been facilitated through a series of
transport modelling meetings and workshops. The model has been developed to test a range
of public transport scenarios for the Stirling City Centre. The main principle of the TODTrips
package is the combination of detailed mode choice modelling with assumptions about trip
generation, distribution and car travel attributes based on the Department of Planning’s
STEM strategic transport model. This approach is designed to allow the rapid development
and testing the relative performance of a range of scenarios based on future assumptions
regarding land use and transport.
The development of assumptions regarding future land use and transport is an important
part of the model development process. It is intended to inform the specification of
assumptions regarding the 2031 study area.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 39
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
The following outlines the broad capabilities and limitations of the TODTrips model:
Capabilities

detailed modelling of land use patterns, including the distribution of population and
employment inside the study area

detailed modelling of transport networks inside the study area including walk access,
public transport lines and services bus, street car LRT, BRT routes and services, and
rail stations and services

sophisticated generalised cost mode choice model for four main modes of travel – car,
public transport, cycle and walk

modelling of daily trips for all purposes that start and/or end in the study area.
Limitations

coarse representation of zones outside the study area – modelling of links to key origins
and destinations

no modelling of detail road and traffic network – assumptions are made about car travel
attributes

no modelling of trips that start and end outside the study area – that is, no modelling of
through trips.
Key features associated with the TODTrips modelling platform applicable to the Light Rail
Feasibility – Phase 2 study include:

modelling of land use according to zoning types and floor space ratios

modelling of higher density land use around selected transport nodes

detailed modelling of bus and rail services together with consideration of alternative
transit options including Street Car, Light Rail (LRT), BRT and LRT on single side

modelling of public transport travel to key regional zones around study area

estimation of daily trip patterns

mode choice modelling based on generalised cost for car, public transport, cycling and
walk trips.
The primary focus of TODTrips is the rapid development and testing of a range of scenarios
related to land use and transport planning.
The TODTrips model focused on the average daily person trips for all trip purposes for year
2031 and incorporates the following main modes of travel:
Page 40

car – driver and passenger combined

walk and cycling combined

rail (access via Glendalough and Stirling Stations within study area)
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
4.3

bus (include local and regional bus services that pass through the study area), and

alternative transit options including bus, street car, LRT, BRT and LRT on single side.
Assessment result of five transit modal scenarios
Five scenarios were setup in TODTrips to represent five alternative modal options and
operating environments that could be considered to serve the SCC in 2031. In general, the
broad operating environment for each scenario was set up to maintain appropriate existing
public transport services with the addition of a new mode with a specified level of service.
Existing public transport services within the study area are described in Table 4.1 and
Figure 4.1. The Northern rail service has Stirling and Glendalough stations as the key rail
access points within study area. The speed and frequency of the Northern rail service are
based on Transperth time table. The operating characteristics of bus services (including
98/99, 413 and 400) such as speed, number of stops and frequency of services were made
available to the TODTrips study team by the PTA.
The section of the Northern Railway Line to Joondalup between Stirling and Glendalough
stations, local route 413 bus service, Circle Bus route 98/99 and route 400 were included in
every scenario.
Table 4.1
Service
Existing public transports operating environment for Stirling
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
4
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
4
4
400
Regional bus
24.2
4
4
Figure 4.1
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stop locations of existing public transport services
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 41
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
These existing public transport services were included in every scenario and operating
environment which will be described in the following sections.
4.3.1
Scenario 1 – Base case (Bus)
Table 4.2
Service
Scenario base (Bus’s) operating environment
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
4
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
4
4
400
Regional bus
24.2
4
4
5
Base
Local bus
15.0
13
4
Apart from the existing public transport services (Joondalup rail, 98/99, 413 and 400 bus
services), new service is highlighted in Table 4.2 as Service number 5 and labelled as Base.
In this scenario, a local bus service is tested with 13 stops (see Figure 4.2), average speed
of 15 kph and run every 15 minutes. This speed is a result of the absence of a dedicated
running way for busses in this scenario as well as the relatively high number of stops.
Figure 4.2
Page 42
Stop locations of new local bus service in Scenario 1
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
4.3.2
Scenario 2 – Street Car/Tram
Apart from the existing public transport services (Joondalup rail, 98/99, 413 and 400 bus
services), a new service is highlighted in Table 4.3 as Service number 5 and labelled as S2.
In this scenario, a street car (or tram) is tested with 19 stops (see Figure 4.3), average speed
of 15 kph and run every 5 minutes. It should be noted that the operating speed of service
400 is reduced from 24.2 kph down to 15 kph mainly due to safety as both the street car and
service 400 could share the road space on the Scarborough Beach Road and general traffic
including bus service 400 would have to give way to passengers alighting and boarding at
tram stops.
Table 4.3
Scenario S2 (Street Car/Trams) operating environment
Service
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
4
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
4
4
400
Regional bus
15.0
4
4
5
S2
Streetcar
15.0
19
12
Figure 4.3
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stop locations of Street Car service in Scenario 2
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 43
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
4.3.3
Scenario 3A – LRT
Apart from the existing public transport services (Joondalup rail, 98/99, 413 and 400 bus
services), a new service is highlighted in Table 4.4 as Service number 5 and labelled as
S3A. In this scenario, a dedicated LRT is tested with 11 stops (see Figure 4.4), average
speed of 20 kph and run every 5 minutes. It should be noted that the operating speed of
service 400 is reduced from 24.2 kph down to 20 kph mainly due to safety as both the LRT
and service 400 would share the road space on the Scarborough Beach Road. However, the
planned speed for the bus service 400 is still higher than in Scenario S2 with Street Car as
passenger alighting and boarding at LRT stops will be more protected with LRT.
Table 4.4
Service
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
3
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
4
4
400
Regional bus
20.0
4
9
5
S3A
LRT
20.0
11
12
Figure 4.4
Page 44
Scenario 3A (LRT’s) operating environment
Stop locations of LRT service in Scenario 3A
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
4.3.4
Scenario 3B – BRT
The operating environment of this scenario is identical to Scenario 3A in terms of existing
public transport services and the alignment and associated stopping patterns of the new
mode (see Figure 4.2). The only difference is that the new mode is changed from LRT to
BRT and the frequency of service is reduced from 12 to 4 services per hour.
Table 4.5
Service
Scenario 3B (BRT’s) operating environment
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
3
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
4
4
400
Regional bus
20.0
4
9
5
S3B
BRT
20.0
11
4
Figure 4.5
4.3.5
Stop locations of BRT service in Scenario 3B
Scenario 4 – LRT (Single Sided)
This scenario was constructed as a variation to Scenario S3A which is also a LRT option.
However, the LRT proposed in this scenario is only operating on the southern side of
Scarborough Beach Road (western side on Stephenson Blvd). This mode of operation might
create some distance constraints for residents on the northern side of Scarborough Beach
Road as they might need to walk extra distance to pedestrian crossing to be able to cross
Scarborough Beach Road. This extra walking distance (currently assumed to be 30 metres)
was added to the utility function for those zones affected by this scenario.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 45
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Table 4.6
Scenario 4 (LRT to one side) operating environment
Service
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
3
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
4
4
400
Regional bus
15.0
4
9
5
S4
LRT Side
17.5
16
12
Figure 4.6
Stop locations of LRT (to one side) service in Scenario 4
The assessment of five scenarios was implemented with two car use scenarios: high and low
car use for internal trips and high car use for external trips. Results of TODTrips model runs
output for all scenarios are presented and discussed in the following sections.
4.4
Internal trips – mode share and ridership estimates
This section presents mode share and ridership estimates for all five scenarios to
accommodate approximately 92,000 daily person trips estimated for internal travel
movements (I-I). Tables 4.7 and 4.8 present the mode share results based on the high and
low car scenarios. Main findings are as follows:
Page 46

Walk and cycle mode share is quite consistent and stable across different scenarios
with average of 26.8% and 27.9% share in low and high car scenarios, respectively.

Car, rail and bus had highest share in base scenario among all five scenarios.
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2

With the introduction of alternative transit modes including Street car, LRT, BRT and
LRT single sided, mode choice pattern was redistributed where alternative modes gain
an average share of 20%.

These gains came from the drops in car share by around 7%, walk and cycle mode
share by around 2%, rail share by around 3.5% and bus share by 3 to 8%.
Table 4.7
Low car use – Mode share for internal trips
by Car
by Walk
& Cycle
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
by Bus
Base
47.3%
28.0%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.4%
Street car
40.6%
26.4%
3.2%
24.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.2%
LRT
40.8%
26.5%
3.1%
0.0%
22.3%
0.0%
7.3%
BRT
41.1%
26.6%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
20.5%
8.2%
LRT (single sided)
40.5%
26.4%
3.1%
0.0%
24.0%
0.0%
5.9%
Scenario
Table 4.8
High car use scenario – Mode share of internal trips
by Car
by Walk
& Cycle
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
by Bus
Base
54.9%
29.6%
6.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.9%
Street car
45.3%
27.4%
2.8%
20.4%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%
LRT
45.6%
27.5%
2.7%
0.0%
18.6%
0.0%
5.7%
BRT
46.2%
27.7%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
6.4%
LRT (single sided)
45.3%
27.5%
2.7%
0.0%
19.9%
0.0%
4.7%
Scenario
Tables 4.9 and 4.10 provide a summary of ridership share of 92,000 daily person trips
among different transport modes for low and high car use. Main findings are as follows:

Apart from highest ridership values in car, rail and bus, alternative transport modes
results in base scenario, alternative transport modes (street car, LRT, BRT and LRT
single sided) ridership values to accommodate 92,000 internal person trips are around
20,000 person trips per day in low car use and around 18,000 person trips per day in
high car use scenarios.
Table 4.9
Low car use scenario – ridership share among different transport
modes for internal trips
by Car
by Walk
& Cycle
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
by Bus
Base
43575
25756
7626
0
0
0
15095
Street car
37331
24342
2965
22588
0
0
4826
LRT
37543
24399
2847
0
20563
0
6699
BRT
37816
24457
3300
0
0
18891
7588
LRT (single sided)
37327
24345
2874
0
22101
0
5406
Scenario
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 47
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Table 4.10
High car use scenario – ridership share among different transport
modes for internal trips
by Car
by Walk
& Cycle
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
Base
50575
27233
6096
0
0
0
8148
Street car
41667
25260
2546
18744
0
0
3835
LRT
41976
25343
2442
0
17080
0
5212
BRT
42493
25453
2807
0
0
15408
5892
LRT (single sided)
41695
25271
2454
0
18277
0
4355
Scenario
4.5
by Bus
External trips – mode share and ridership estimates
This section presents mode share and ridership estimates for all five scenarios to
accommodate some 210,000 daily person trips estimated for external travel movements
(I-E and E-I movements). Table 4.11 presents the result for the distribution of regional
access and egress by external trips into and out of the study area. Main findings are as
follows:
Table 4.11
Distribution of regional access and egress by external trips into and
out of study area (I-E and E-I movements)
Daily
trips by
Car
Daily
trips by
regional
rail
Daily
trips by
regional
bus
Total
daily
trips
pc by
car
pc by
regional
rail
pc by
regional
bus
Base
135900
46231
26979
209110
65.0%
22.1%
12.9%
Street car
131015
48611
29483
209110
62.7%
23.2%
14.1%
LRT
129549
47731
31831
209110
62.0%
22.8%
15.2%
BRT
130134
47312
31664
209110
62.2%
22.6%
15.1%
LRT (single sided)
129623
47630
31856
209110
62.0%
22.8%
15.2%
Scenario
Among the 210,000 daily person trips estimated for external travel movements (I-E and E-I
movements), an average of 130,000 car trips had direct access between external and
internal zones. While 130,000 daily person trips of car mode to and from external zones will
become internal travel component within the study area, the 80,000 (=210,000-130000) daily
person trips by regional rail and or regional bus will be connected to the local transit network
within the study area. Tables 4.12 and 4.13 present the result for the modal split and
ridership share by local transit modes from these approximate 80,000 daily person trips in
connecting to the local transit services. Main findings are as follows:
Page 48

In Base scenario, rail and bus mode shares are 27.9% and 7.1%, respectively.

In other alternative mode scenarios including street car, LRT, BRT and LRT single
sided, rail and bus modes drop their share values down to 15.3% and 5.7%,
respectively. Alternative transport mode shares gains from significant drop in rail share
(12.6% reduction), car share (3% reduction) and bus share (1.4% reduction) with
16.3% mode share for street car and LRT and 12.7% mode share for BRT.
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2

Ridership estimates for alternative transport modes ranges from average of 26,000 daily
person trips (BRT) to 34,000 daily person trips (street car, LRT and LRT single sided).
Table 4.12
Modal split of external trips using local transit services
by Car
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
by Bus
Base
65.0%
27.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.1%
Street car
62.7%
15.3%
16.3%
0.0%
5.7%
LRT
62.0%
16.3%
0.0%
0.0%
6.2%
BRT
62.2%
18.0%
0.0%
12.7%
7.0%
LRT (single sided)
62.0%
15.8%
0.0%
0.0%
5.8%
Scenario
Table 4.13
16.3%
Ridership estimates of external trips (I-E and E-I movements) using
transit services
by Car
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
by Bus
Base
135900
58280
0
0
0
14931
Street car
131015
31901
34183
0
0
12011
LRT
129549
34097
0
32470
0
12995
BRT
130134
37668
0
0
26635
14674
LRT (single sided)
129623
33081
0
34176
0
12230
Scenario
4.6
15.5%
Combined internal and external trips - mode share and
ridership estimates
This section presents mode share and ridership estimates for all five scenarios to
accommodate a total of around 300,000 daily person trips estimated for all travel movements
(including internal and external trips). Tables 4.14 and 4.15 present the mode share results
based on the high and low car scenarios. Main findings are as follows:

All for alternative transport modes including street car, LRT, BRT and LRT single sided
have gained a high mode share values (from 14% with BRT to 19% with Street Car) in
comparing to the bus option used in the Base scenario.

The 5% difference between BRT and the street car and LRT is mainly due to the
frequency of service of BRT is effectively 7.5 minutes (within the dedicated running way)
versus 5 minutes. This shows that the modelling results are sensitive to frequency, as a
key driver of demand and which underlines the fundamental drivers of success.

Street car mode gains highest mode share is mainly due to its service coverage with
19 stops in comparing to 13 stops in LRT scenario.

In terms of ridership estimates, all alternative modes scenarios are comparable and
their values are in the range of 45,000 to 55,000 person trips per day.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 49
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
Table 4.14
Low car use – mode share for combined internal and external trips
by Car
by Walk
& Cycle
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
by Bus
Base
59.6%
8.6%
21.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
Street car
55.9%
8.1%
11.6%
18.9%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
LRT
55.5%
8.1%
12.3%
0.0%
17.6%
0.0%
6.5%
BRT
55.8%
8.1%
13.6%
0.0%
0.0%
15.1%
7.4%
LRT (single sided)
55.4%
8.1%
11.9%
0.0%
18.7%
0.0%
5.9%
Scenario
Table 4.15
High car use – mode share for combined internal and external trips
by Car
by Walk
& Cycle
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
by Bus
Base
61.9%
9.0%
21.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.7%
Street car
57.3%
8.4%
11.4%
17.6%
0.0%
0.0%
5.3%
LRT
57.0%
8.4%
12.1%
0.0%
16.5%
0.0%
6.0%
BRT
57.3%
8.5%
13.4%
0.0%
0.0%
14.0%
6.8%
LRT (single sided)
56.9%
8.4%
11.8%
0.0%
17.4%
0.0%
5.5%
Scenario
Table 4.16
Low car use – ridership estimates for combined internal and external
trips
by Car
by Walk
& Cycle
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
by Bus
Total
Base
179474
25756
65905
0
0
0
30026
301162
Street car
168346
24342
34866
56771
0
0
16836
301162
LRT
167092
24399
36944
0
53033
0
19694
301162
BRT
167949
24457
40968
0
0
45526
22261
301162
LRT (single sided)
166950
24345
35955
0
56277
0
17635
301162
Scenario
Table 4.17
High car use – ridership estimates for combined internal and external
trips
by Car
by Walk
& Cycle
by Rail
by
Street Car
by LRT
by BRT
by Bus
Total
Base
186474
27233
64375
0
0
0
23079
301162
Street car
172682
25260
34447
52927
0
0
15845
301162
LRT
171524
25343
36539
0
49550
0
18206
301162
BRT
172627
25453
40475
0
0
42043
20565
301162
LRT (single sided)
171317
25271
35536
0
52453
0
16585
301162
Scenario
Page 50
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
5.
Summary
Phase 1 of the Stirling Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study undertook a ‘high level’
examination of potential patronage of a light rail system to support the Stirling – Osborne
Park corridor. This was not a detailed modelling exercise but rather a broad ‘spreadsheet’
modelling approach with the prime objective of establishing if the proposed level of land use
intensity could generate sufficient demand to support a light rail system to warrant moving to
a more detailed study of potions.
In Phase 1, the base case analysis showed an estimated light rail patronage of
approximately 27,000 trips on an average weekday. To place these findings in context,
comparison was made with light rail systems introduced in recent years in the United
States). Comparison with these figures indicates that the Stirling light rail system is definitely
‘in the ballpark’.
Increasing development to the higher ‘aspirational’ levels would increase this somewhat to
approximately 31,000 trips, while if the transit mode increased from 5.5% to 15% as many as
41,000 trips per day might be expected. (Note: The Phase 2 assessment assumed slightly
higher mode shares by mode as result of the parking and cycling strategies that have been
advanced by the City of Stirling subsequent to the Phase 1 study to support the integrated
land use and transport strategy).
The analysis considered the potential corridor between Stirling Station and Glendalough
Station as two stages. Stage One comprised a north south corridor along a realigned Ellen
Stirling Boulevard or Stephenson Avenue. This stage would almost certainly not be justified
on patronage grounds alone over the short term. However as a development catalyst it
displays some merit. Stage Two included an east west corridor along Scarborough Beach
Road between Ellen Stirling Boulevard and Glendalough Station.
The Phase 1 study suggested that Stages One and Two together would probably generate
significant levels of associated development and patronage provided that there is ‘buy in’
from land holders and developers in the corridor.
Alternatively, Stage One of the line should be used as a catalyst for development within the
Stirling Central area to help encourage the preferred patterns of development. In this role,
Stage One must be tied to commitments to develop transit supportive land uses within an
acceptable timeframe and firm agreements should be in place to adequately cover operating
costs. In addition, under this scenario, Stage One should only proceed if there is certainty
that the full system will be built to ensure a more financially sustainable outcome.
The Phase 2 study reinforces the findings that a high quality transit system, such as a LRT
or street running tram is viable if supporting land use and transport policies are in place.
The following conclusions and observations are made in relation to the results of the
modelling:

There is a potentially strong market for a high quality transit system to provide for travel
within the study area and to facilitate the use of public transport for access to the area
from other parts of the metropolitan area. In particular, there is strong potential for the
operation of an effective internal transit system in the Stirling Centre. In other words,
the transit system will function well as a ‘pedestrian accelerator’ or for relatively short
trips amongst origins and destinations within the study area.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 51
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2

The modelling results show that demand could be in the range of around 40,000 to
55,000 passengers per day. This result is considered to be relatively high and has been
driven by the land use assumptions and the overall high level of development included
in the model. These figures should be reviewed as part of a practical assessment of the
development potential in the study area.

The transit system has a strong role to play in minimising the use of private motor
vehicles for movement within the centre and minimising the demand for parking.

With regards the modes tested, the street running transit (tram) shows that it has the
potential to attract marginally more passengers than the other options. This mode is the
most accessible, with the highest number of stops which underlines the importance of
selecting a mode which can be closely integrated with development along the corridor.

The design of the transit system, the final decision regarding the streets in which it will
operate and the delivery of developments which support active street frontages will
have a strong bearing on the ultimate success of the transit system.

It is essential that supportive land use framework be in place prior to implementation to
allow the catalytic effects to be produced effectively.

Close integration is required at Stirling and Glendalough Railway Stations to ensure
barrier free seamless interchange conditions for passengers to maximise the
attractiveness of the transit system for people travelling from outside the study area.
Based on the modelling findings and the potential land use integration and transport
characteristics, a hybrid tram/LRT system is recommended for further consideration in the
next phase (i.e. Concept Design and Final Feasibility). The hybrid would include a centre
median dedicated LRT (and potential BRT) along Scarborough Beach Road. This running
environment would maintain operational reliability by avoiding congested travel lanes. It is
recommended that mid-block traffic signals be introduced along Scarborough Beach Road to
allow for two or more additional stations and safe pedestrian and cyclist access to be
included along the corridor. As shown in the modelling, the additional stations allowed by the
streetcar/tram served to increase patronage.
The hybrid would include either a streetcar along a realigned Ellen Stirling Boulevard or a
single side running LRT along the west side of Stephenson Avenue. The benefit of the
former is the inclusion of additional stations and better integration with supportive,
surrounding land uses. The benefit of the latter is the placement of the stations in closer and
more direct walking access to the land uses due to separation created by the day-lighted
stream on the east side of the street.
A modal comparison summary matrix is provided in Appendix A to illustrate characteristics of
existing high quality transit systems globally. In addition, a range of hypothetical operating
characteristics, scenarios and costs are presented in Appendix B for each mode. The
matrices have been developed to allow for the assessment of optimal service plans based
on the incremental growth of patronage over time, required equipment and optimal frequency
of service. The matrices should be used to further refine the service plan as part of the next
steps.
The hypothetical costs included in Appendix B for each mode include capital and operating
costs as well as life cycle costs for various operating scenarios based on potential patronage
and service patterns. One noteworthy observation based on the life cycle cost analysis is
that trams and light rail appear to have lower long term costs than bus based systems.
Page 52
10-0477-02-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
However, verification of this observation will require additional refinement based on the
actual proposed operating plan and concept design in Phase 3.
The reader is forewarned not to make generalizations about the performance of the Stirling
system based on international and national averages as presented in the report and in
Appendices A and B. Costs and performance measures are based on averages from urban
or suburban settings that may not be relevant to the Stirling corridor. The information simply
provides some basic parameters for illustrative purposes. A more detailed concept design,
service plan and final patronage forecast is recommended as a next step (Phase 3) to more
precisely determine costs for the Stirling LRT.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-02-2106689A
Page 53
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
Mode comparison summary
Bus on street
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Trams on street
Light Rail Transit (dedicated)
TransLohr
O-Bahn, Adelaide
Busway, Brisbane
LPT, Sydney
Curitiba, Brazil
Bogotá, Columbia
Istanbul, Turkey
Leeds, UK
Nancy, France
Ottawa, Canada
Pittsburgh East Busway, USA
Boston, USA
Los Angeles, USA
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Quito, Ecuador
Sao Paolo, Brazil
Kunming Busways, China
Adelaide
Melbourne
Sydney
London, UK
Manchester, UK
Montpellier, France
Strasbourg, France
Stockholm, Sweden
Zurich, Switzerland
Portland Streetcar, USA
Boudreaux, France
Portland, USA
Adelaide
Melbourne
Paris, France
Barcelona, Spain
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Boston, USA
Docklands Light Rail, UK
Boston, USA
Calgary, USA
Denver, USA
KCRC Light rail, Hong Kong
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Baltimore, USA
Virginia, USA
Los Angeles, USA
Pittsburgh, USA
Seattle, USA
Salt Lake City, USA
Charlotte, USA
Dubai, UAE
Clermont-Ferrand, France
Tianjin, China
Padua, Italy
Venice, Italy
Shanghai, China
Paris, France
Châtillon, France
Standard Rigid 12.5 m length
Standard Rigid 12.5 m length
3 Section Vehicle 30 m length
2 Section Vehicle 20 m length
3 Section Vehicle 25 m length
 45 seated
 30 standees
 75 total
 45 seated
 30 standees
 75 total
 64 seated
 115 standees
 179 total
 30 seated
 127 standees
 157 total
 60 seated
 110 standees
 170 total
Tri-Axel Rigid 14.5 m length
Tri-Axel Rigid 14.5 m length
5 Section Vehicle 40 m length3
3 Section Vehicle 30 m length7
4 Section Vehicle 32 m length
 55 seated
 35 standees
 90 total
 55 seated
 35 standees
 90 total
 72 seated
 143 standees
 215 total
 68 seated
 168 standees
 236 total
 80 seated
 150 standees
 230 total
Transit mode use in other cities
Currently operating in Perth in every major city
around the world
Capacity – Vehicle type
3
6
CK
6 Section Vehicle 74 m length
Articulated 18.0 m length
 65 seated
 55 standees
 110 total
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
3B
 180 seated
 420 standees
 600 total
Articulated 18.0 m length
6 Section Vehicle 54 m length
 65 seated
 55 standees
 110 total
 58 seated
 296 standees
 352 total
Double Articulated 24.0 m length
9 Section Vehicle 72 m length
6 Section Vehicle 46 m length
 80 seated
 100 standees
 180 total2
 90 seated
 440 standees
 530 total
 120 seated
 225 standees
 345 total4
3B
10-0477-01-2106689A
5 Section Vehicle 39 m length
 100 seated
 190 standees
 290 total
Page A.1
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
Bus on street
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Trams on street
Light Rail Transit (dedicated)
TransLohr
Peak hour capacity – Passengers per direction per hour
Indicative range:
< 3,000 (bus on street)A
AH
1,000-3,000 (US, bus: mixed traffic)
1,000 – 20,000 per hour (BRT – exclusive ROW )A
2,000-10,000 (US, BRT/bus lanes)AH
10,000 – 12,000 (U.S – bus. Small because don’t
take small headways into account)AM
AT
1,500 (TVM, Paris)
2,000 (Route 5 - Hamburg)AT
2,500 (London - bus)AE
2,800 (L 12, Utrecht)AT
AT
3,300 (Teor, Roeun, Paris)
AE
4,000 (London - max bus priority)
AF
5,000 (L.A.)
AE
6,000 (London - busway)
A
7,500 (Adelaide)
9,000 (SE Busways)AL
AN
10,000 (Ottawa Transitway)
AD
11,000 (Curitiba)
AN
11,500 (Goiania, Brazil)
AN
15,000 (Quito Trolleybus)
15,100 (Curitiba, Eixo Sul)AN, AA
21,100 (Belo Horizonte, Brazil)AN
25,600 (Porto Alegre, Farrapos)AN
26,000 (Porto Alegre)AA
AN
28,000 (Porto Alegre, Assis)
29,800 (Recife Caxanga, Brazil)AN
33,000 (Bogota)AN
34,900 (Sao Paulo 9 de Julho)AN
67,000 (Bogotá - TransMilenio)A
Indicative range:
4,000 – 12,000 (tram)A
E
3,000-6,000 (estimated for Gold Coast)
3,000-14,000 (US, on-street ROW)AH.
2,160 (Adelaide)
AT
4,000 (T2, Paris)
6,000 (Yellow Line, Porto)AT
AA
6,000 (Strasbourg)
AA
13,400 (Tunis)
AE
18,000 (London)
AM
26,000 (U.S.)
30,000 (Putra Kuala Lumpur –theoretical estimate
only)AN
4,000 – 25,000 (segregated - exclusive ROW)A
7,000-18,000 (US, exclusive ROW)AH
Indicative range:
4,000 – 12,000 (TransLohr)
Standard Rigids:
Standard Rigids:
30 m Length Tram:
30 m Length LRT:
25 m Length TransLohr:
 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency
450
900
2,250 1 min frequency
4,500
Tri-Axel Rigids:
 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency
450
900
2,250 1 min frequency
4,500
Tri-Axel Rigids:
540
1080
2,700 1 min frequency
4,400
Articulated:




 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency
 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency
660
5 min frequency
1,320
2 min frequency
3,300
1 min frequency
6,600




1080
2,700 1 min frequency
4,400
Page A.2
5,370 1 min frequency
10,740
 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency
10 min frequency
660
5 min frequency
1,320
2 min frequency
3,300
1 min frequency
6,600




2,580
6,450 1 min frequency
12,900
1,080
5 min frequency
2,160
2 min frequency
5,400
1 min frequency
10,800




10 min frequency
2,112
5 min frequency
4,224
2 min frequency
10,560
1 min frequency
21,120
1,884
4,710 1 min frequency
9,420
 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency




3,180
5 min frequency
6,360
2 min frequency
15,900
1 min frequency
31,800




 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency
1,200
2,040
5,100 1 min frequency
10,200
32 m Length TransLohr:
1,416
2,832
7,080 1 min frequency
14,160
 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency
1,380
2,760
6,900 1 min frequency
13,800
39 m Length TransLohr:
10 min frequency
2,112
5 min frequency
4,224
2 min frequency
10,560
1 min frequency
21,120
74 m Length LRT:
10 min frequency
10-0477-01-2106689A
942
54 m Length LRT:
72 m Length Tram:
10 min frequency
 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency
40 m Length LRT:
1,290
54 m Length Tram:
Double Articulated:




1,074
2,148
40 m Length Tram:
540
Articulated:
10 min frequency
 10 min frequency
 5 min frequency
 2 min frequency




10 min frequency
1,740
5 min frequency
3,480
2 min frequency
8,700
1 min frequency
17,400
46 m Length TransLohr:
10 min frequency
3,600
5 min frequency
7,200
2 min frequency
18,000
1 min frequency
36,000




10 min frequency
2,070
5 min frequency
4,140
2 min frequency
10,350
1 min frequency
20,700
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
Bus on street
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Trams on street
Light Rail Transit (dedicated)
TransLohr
Indicative range $10m-100m
Indicative range $10m-100m
Indicative range $10m-50m
Capital expenditure (average per kilometre in AUD)
Indicative range $0.1m-3m
<$1.75m (London)
Indicative range $1m-32m
BT
AF 5
$0.39m-$0.78m (rapid bus)
$1.8m (Porto Alegre Busways)AG
$2.2m (LPT exclusive corridor)B 4
$2.4m - $4.8m (max priority - London)AE 7
$2.4m - $48m (busway - London)AE 7
$3.4m (LPT shared, on median of arterials)B 4
$3.4m (Eugene, USA)BV
$4.1m (LPT shared, outside arterial lanes)B 4
$3.2m (LPT shared, on one side of road)B 4
$2.8m (LPT Greenfield exclusive corridor)B 4
$3.8m (busway - London) AE 7
$3.9m-$42.7m (indicative range, busway)AF 5
$7.4m (Bogota Phase I)AM 5
$9.5m (Bogotá TransMilenio phase 1)AG
$9.9m (Ottoway, Canada)BV
$11.2 (LPT Sydney)A O
$17.8m (Los Angeles, USA)BV
$16.6m (Bogota Phase II – difference primarily due to
increased investment in public space & infrastructure
AM 5
improvements)
$22.4m (SE Busways, Brisbane – fully grade separated,
tunnels/viaducts, stations)
AI
$104 (Northern Busway, Brisbane)CH
$158 (Inner Northern Busway, Brisbane)CH
$27.2m (av. of 22 automated guided systems in US)Y 7
$31.3m (Orange Line BRT –L.A) AE 5
$1.75-$35.0m (London)BT
$10m (Yarra Trams – ballpark figure, includes overhead
power cabling, stations & services etc. does not include new
W
sub station)
$12m-$24m (trams – double track. Rising to around $72m if
substantial lengths of elevated track or tunnel are required.
W
Costs include depot, workshops, rolling stock & infrastructure)
$16m (Tunis, covers planning & construction costs, technical
equipment & rolling stock)
AN 5
$18m - $22m (Gold Coast estimate)E
$23m-$78m (indicative range)AF 5
$23.4m (Manchester Metrolink)AE 7
$24m - $106m (indicative range)AE 7
$24-$32m (Stockholm, Sweden),
$24.2m (Tunis)AG
$27m (US average – covers planning & construction costs,
technical equipment & rolling stock)
AN 5
Y7
$35.2m (Montpellier, France)
$40m (Tramlink extensions, London)AE 7
$63m (PUTRA – Kuala Lumpur: elevated, driverless, covers
planning & construction costs, technical equipment & rolling
AN 5
stock)
$26m - $35m (London)BT
$51.72m (Portland, USA) BY Portland Mall, South Corridor
$150.33m (Portland, USA) BY Milwaukie
$16.96m (Portland, USA) BZ Downtown Line
$19.64m (Portland, USA) BZ Downtown Line Extension
BT
$17.5m – $78m (London)
$569.32m (San Francisco, USA)BY Third Street Extension
$192.32m (Seattle, USA) BY Central Link projects
$148.57m (New Jersey, USA) BY
$146.46m (Pittsburgh, USA) BY
$113.60m (Los Angeles, USA) BY Metro Gold Line east
$46.1m (Paris)BI
$10.8m (Shanghai 2009)BD
$7.45m (Claremont Farrand, France)BB
extension
$95.25m (Houston, USA) BY North Corridor
$81.85m (Houston, USA) BY Southeast Corridor
$70.33m (St Paul/Minneapolis, USA) BY
$59.34m (Denver, USA) BY Gold Line
$53.72m (Phoenix, USA) BY
$52.19m (Charlotte, USA) BY
$49.93m (Dallas, USA) BY
$46.62m (Sacramento, USA) BY
$43.74m (Denver, USA) BY West Corridor
$37.66m (Salk Lake City, USA) BY
$34.33m (Denver, USA) BY Southeast Corridor
$25.91m (Denver, USA) BY East Corridor
$23.39m (Virginia, USA) BY
$93.57m (Orange, County, USA) BY
$197.6m (Honolulu, USA) BY Elevated LRT
$50m (Dubai, UAE)CA, consists of fully automated, elevated
and underground track
Ground based power supply
1999
$33m (Bordeaux, France)BU
Cost per Vehicle
$187,500- $437,500 (CNG,LPG)AC 5
$250,000- $500,000 (Hybrid Electric)AC 5
$312,000 (single decker)W
$384,000 (double decker)W
$480,000 (articulated single decker)W
$550,000 - $800,000
$187,500- $437,500 (CNG,LPG)AC 5
$250,000- $500,000 (Hybrid Electric)AC 5
$312,000 (single decker)W
$384,000 (double decker)W
$480,000 (articulated single decker)W
$550,000 - $800,000
AF, AU 5
$2.9m (double-articulated) average 2005-2006AZ 5
$3m (Sydney estimates)A & AK
$3.2m (Madrid)BA 8
$3.5m (modern low-floor)AI
$3.4m (articulated) average 2005-2006AZ 5
$5.3m (1-level cab) average 2005-2006AZ 5
$3.9m (Calgary, Canada)CK
$3.1m (Claremont Farrand 2006)BB
$3.15m (Shanghai/Tianjin, China)CC-
AF, AU 5
(18 mtrs, articulated, low-floor, standard, diesel or CNG)
(18 mtrs, articulated, low-floor, standard, diesel or CNG)
$780,000 - $1.2m
$780,000 - $1.2m
(18 mtrs, articulated, low-floor, stylised (looks like LRT), diesel
AF, AU 5
or CNG)
(18 mtrs, articulated, low-floor, stylised (looks like LRT), diesel or
AF, AU 5
CNG)
$1m (high capacity buses, Sydney estimates)AK
$1.25m-$1.88m (Fuel Cell)AC 5
$960,000 (optically guided, articulated single decker)W
$1m (high capacity buses, Sydney estimates)AK
$1.2m - $2m (specialised BRT vehicles – e.g. Civis by Irisbus in
Ground based power supply
1999
$3.55 (Bordeaux, France)BU
Las Vegas)AU 5
$1.2m - $2m (18 mtrs BRT vehicle with guidance, internal
combustion, - electric or hybrid)
AV
AC 5
$1.25m-$1.88m (Fuel Cell)
$2.16m (French GLT articulated single decker)W
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-01-2106689A
Page A.3
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
Bus on street
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Trams on street
Light Rail Transit (dedicated)
TransLohr
Operational expenditure (cost per vehicle kilometre, cost per vehicle hour, cost per passenger kilometre)
Typical Australian cost $3-$4W
$7.00 - $14.00/vkm (London)
BT
$4.50/vkm (not ‘next generation’ BRT)
$9-$19/vkm (bus)AE 7
$7.00 - $14.00/vkm (London)BT
Typical Australian cost $5-$15
AH
BP
$162 per hr (Dallas, USA)
BP
$130 per hr (Denver, USA)
$43 per hr (Los Angeles, USA) BP
BP
$238 per hr (Pittsburgh, USA)
$173 per hr (San Diego, USA) BP
$184 per hr (San Jose, USA) BP
BP
$53 per hr (Calgary, Canada)
Cost per Passenger Km
$0.73 (Santiago, USA)BW
$1.27 (St Louis, USA) BW
BW
$0.93 (Los Angeles, USA )
BW
$0.98 (Portland, USA)
$1.02 (Sacramento, USA) BW
$1.43 (Dallas, USA) BW
BW
$1.02 (Baltimore, USA)
BW
$1.02 (Denver, USA)
$1.39 (San Jose, USA) BW
$1.51 (Buffalo, USA) BW
$0.26 (Stockholm, Sweden)BX
$12/vkm (Tramlink - London)
W
$13/vkm
AH
$14/vkm
$8.35/vkm (London)BT
AE 7
Typical Australian cost $5-$15
$12/vkm (Tramlink - London)AE 7
W
$13/vkm
AH
$14/vkm
$21.00/vkm (DLR, London)BT
BP
$335 per hr (Dallas, USA)
BP
$205 per hr (Denver, USA)
$724 per hr (Los Angeles, USA) BP
BP
$378 per hr (Pittsburgh, USA)
$151 per hr (San Diego, USA) BP
$335 per hr (San Jose, USA) BP
BP
$122 per hr (Calgary, Canada)
Cost per Passenger Km
$0.68 (Portland, USA) BW
$0.91 (Dallas, USA) BW
BW
$1.66 (Buffalo, USA)
BX
$0.31 (Stockholm, Sweden)
Cost per Passenger Km
$0.33 (Santiago, USA)BW
$0.39 (St Louis, USA) BW
BW
$0.58 (Los Angeles, USA )
BW
$0.73 (Sacramento, USA)
BW
$0.93 (Baltimore, USA)
$1.53 (San Jose, USA) BW
BW
$1.18 (Denver, USA)
Operating speed (includes loading at stations)
Maximum Operating Speed:
80 km/h – 100 km/h
Maximum Operating Speed:
100km/h
Maximum Operating Speed:
70 km/h
50 km/h on GLPS5 (Bordeaux, France)
Maximum Operating Speed:
100 km/h – 110 km/h
Maximum Operating Speed:
70 km/h
10-14 km/hr (bus) AE
14-18 km/hr (max priority)AE
15-22 km/h (Express)
15-22 km/hr (busway)AE
14-18 km/h (maximum priority)BT
15-22 km/h (busway)BT
22-29 km/h (full BRT)AA
30-60 km/hA
45-50 km/hr (SE Busway) AL
55-60 km/hr (O-Bahn) BE
20-22 km/hr AE (Tram)
8-10 km/hr (Adelaide)BF
15-22 km/h (London)BT
18-40 km/hr AE (LRT)
25 km/hr (Adelaide)BH
30-50 km/h A
18-40 km/h (London)BT
10 m – 15 m Radius
18 m – 25 m Radius
25 m Radius
10.5 m Radius
Diesel
Compressed Natural Gas
Fuel Cell
Hydrogen
Overhead Power Supply
Trolley Bus (Overhead wires)
Generally: 550-800V DC
Generally: 1.5KV
Generally: 600-750V DC
Overhead Power Supply
Ground Level Power Supply (GLPS)
Overhead Power Supply
Ground Power Supply
Battery
Diesel
Overhead Power Supply
WiPost (non Catenary)
Medium – Maximum Priority
Good – Grade Separation
Medium – with traffic
Good – Segregated corridor
Good – Segregated corrid
Medium – with traffic
Good – Segregated corridor
Turning radii
10 m Radius
Power source
Diesel
Compressed Natural Gas
Fuel Cell
Hydrogen
Trolley Bus (Overhead wires)
Timetable and technology reliability
Low - Medium
Page A.4
10-0477-01-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
Bus on street
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Trams on street
Light Rail Transit (dedicated)
TransLohr
Very high for conventional buses on a BRT
system.
For mechanically guided busways the technology
is very high however, low floor articulated
mechanically guided busway vehicles has a low
maturity and current problems exist with
operational speeds and vibrations.
Optically guided busway vehicles have a
moderate maturity with some initial problems.
Very high maturity with low floor, ultra low floor
and high floor vehicles.
Very high maturity with low floor, ultra low floor
and high floor vehicles.
Low to moderate maturity for TransLohr vehicles.
There have been several issues dealing with
derailments in several systems including the
recently opened systems in Shanghai (2009).
Ability for pedestrians to cross at grade:
Ability for pedestrians to cross at grade:
Ability for pedestrians to cross at grade:
Ability for pedestrians to cross at grade:
Ability for pedestrians to cross at grade:
 Yes.




 Yes.
 Yes
 Preferably No for higher speed operation
 Preferably No if LRT level of service is greater
 Yes
 Preferably No when in dedicated higher
Technology maturity
Very High maturity with conventional buses for
standard and articulated vehicles.
Very high maturity for double articulated high floor
vehicles, however, low floor double articulated
vehicles are not as common.
There is also a high level of maturity for hybrid
buses in the United States and Europe, Hybrid
buses in Australia are still emerging.
Integration with the pedestrian and public realms
Bus stops located on street, indented bus bays or
within interchanges. Easily integrated with
pedestrian realm as boarding height is similar to
regular kerb height.
Yes if slow speed operation
Preferably No for higher speed operation
No if BRT is guided
speed corridors.
than 30 trams per hour.
No if BRT level of service is greater than
30-45 buses per hour.
Bus stations located central medians require
signalised crossings, platform heights are similar
to regular kerb heights for low floor vehicles, high
floor vehicles either require steps within the
vehicle and wheelchair lifts or high floor platforms
with ramps or wheelchair lifts. BRT systems with
side running lanes can be directly integrated into
pedestrian footpath.
Tram stations located in central medians require
signalised crossings; platform heights are slightly
higher than regular kerb heights (300-350 mm) for
low floor trams. Trams systems with side running
lanes can be incorporated into pedestrian
footpaths with raised platform areas at stations.
Tram stations can also be located in traffic lanes
with a shared pedestrian and traffic boarding
area. Platform heights remain the at 300-350 mm
with the road travel lanes raising to this height at
tram stations.
Non accessible tram stations can also be located
in traffic lanes, signals stop traffic in both travel
directions when a tram stop to let passengers out.
LRT stations located in central medians require
signalised crossings; platform heights are slightly
higher than regular kerb heights (300-350 mm) for
low floor trams. LRT systems with high floor trams
require high floor platforms with ramps or
wheelchair lifts.
LRT with dedicated running lanes in streets
generally require fencing between the track to
prevent pedestrians from crossing in non
dedicated areas. This can create barriers on
streetscapes and can be visually un appealing.
Other forms of dedicated on in street running
include raised kerbs or dedicated road markings
to prevent regular street traffic from entering the
corridor.
TransLohr stations located in central medians
require signalised crossings; platform heights are
similar height to regular kerb heights (250 mm)
for TransLohr vehicles. TransLohr systems with
side running lanes can be incorporated into
pedestrian footpaths with raised or kerb height
platform areas at stations.
The single central rail used to guide TransLohr
vehicles has been known to cause issues with
cyclists and wheelchairs crossing the track due
to the groves required for the vehicle’s wheels.
Guided BRT can require guideways which can be
visually unattractive.
Oil stains, black marks and scuffing can occur
around bus stops and stations.
High floor bus stops can cause visual barriers
across the corridor.
Corridor surface for mechanically guided BRT’s
can be either open track or grassed. Optically
guided BRT systems generally require a concrete
or bitumen surface.
Over head wires if non-ground based power
supply or internal combustion engine technology
chosen.
Corridor surface can either be bituminised track,
concrete, paved or grassed.
Ground level power supply system’s occur in
several cities, Bordeaux, France has the largest
BU
system and has a reliability of 98.4% reliability ,
minimal visual amenity and corridor surface can
be the same as regular tram systems.
Over head wires if non-ground based power
supply or internal combustion engine technology
chosen.
Corridor surface can either be bituminised track,
concrete, paved, open track or grassed
depending on the application.
Overhead wires.
Corridor surface can either be bituminised track,
concrete, paved or grassed depending on the
application.
Options do exist for WiPost operation which is
overhead power supply without wires. Power is
drawn from light posts/poles and are evenly
spaced along the line. Each unit of the vehicle
has a long horizontal pole located on the roof of
the tram that is in direct contact with the WiPost,
ensuring the tram has continuous power supply
without the need for wires.
Visual Amenity
Increased localised pollution from diesel vehicles
including particulate build-up on surrounding
structures
Greater number of vehicles operating if high
capacity is required
Buses can cause damage to road surfaces to
create uneven pavements.
Oil stains, black marks and scuffing can occur
around bus stops.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-01-2106689A
Page A.5
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
Bus on street
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Trams on street
Light Rail Transit (dedicated)
TransLohr
20% increase in property values (Brisbane) BO
5-10% increase in residential property values
within 300 m of BRT Stop and 3-26% increase in
retail values within 150 m of BRT stop (Seoul,
Korea)BQ.
15-20% within walking distance of BRT stations,
however -3% to -4.4% within 150 m of BRT trunk
line (Bogota, Columbia)BR.
Pittsburgh East Busway prompted $196 m of
additional development along the corridor
BS
(Pittsburgh, USA) .
25% increase in property values (San Diego,
BK
USA) .
10% increases in property values (Portland, USA
BM
1992) .
20% higher property values (Newcastle upon
BM
Tyne, UK 2004) .
10% higher property values (Manchester, UK
2004)BM.
7% higher residential rental returns (Strasburg,
BM
France 2004) .
10%-15% higher office rental returns (Strasburg,
France 2004)BM.
15%-20% higher office rental returns (Freiburg,
Germany 2004)BM.
50% higher office rental returns (Bremen,
BM
Germany 2004) .
40% increase of property values 1 block from
tram stations (Portland, USA Downtown)CD.
2.6% increase in property values over 2009/2010
BL
around rail stations in Brisbane .
6.7% increases in property values (Boston, USA
BM
1994)
10-15% higher rental returns (San Francisco,
BM
USA 1996) .
10.5% increases in property values (Washington,
USA 1999)BM.
19-33% increase in property values (Holland,
BM
2006) .
25% increase in property values (Dallas, USA
2000)BM.
Since TransLohr technology is relatively new,
research on property value uplift for this
technology is minimal. It can be assumed that
this form of technology however, will attract
similar levels of property uplift as trams and LRT
depending upon the application and perception
of its users.
Value uplift and redevelopment catalyst
There has been little research in relation to the
increase of standard bus services on property
values. This is because the fluctuation between
the level of service provided to residential areas
can change from suburb to suburb or city to city.
However, it should be noted that Australia real
estate agents often advertise that a property is
located close to public transport services.
Therefore, it could be assumed that there is some
value uplift for properties that are located with
proximity of good, reliable and frequent bus
services.
Portland Metropolitan Express (15 miles/
32 stations, plus plans for 18 miles expansion):
Since 1986, $1.9 billion in property.
development in the immediate vicinity of the
line.BM.
St Louis, Missouri (opened 1993, 18 miles/
18 stations): to date, development spurred by
transit system totals $530 million and includes
major projects. A $1.5 billion expansion of LRT is
expected to have a $2.3 billion impact on
business salesBM.
1. Based on standard Australian built buses in service around Australia
2. Based on standard Australian
3A. Based on Bombardier’s Flexity 2 specifications
3B. Based on Siemens Light Rail Specifications
4. Based on TransLohr’s Specification
5. GLPS – Ground Level Power Supply
6. Based on Portland 20 m LRT vehicles
7. Based on Charlotte 27 m LRT vehicles
Sources:
A: F6 Public Transport Use Assessment
B: PB LPT Tway design paper
C: CityRail website
D: Victoria Transport Policy Institute August 2006, Rail Transit in America Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits, P34
E: Gold Coast Light Rail Feasibility Study 2005
F: Sydney Buses
G. Glazebrook & Associates February 2005, Report to City of Sydney, Integrated Transport Strategy – Mass Transit for CBD and Inner Sydney.
H. The Sydney Light Rail Company. Light Rail in Sydney-Issues and Perspectives. April 1997
I: Transportation Research Board. Bus Rapid Transit: Why more communities are choosing Bus Rapid Transit. 2001
J. Sinclair Knight Merz. Liverpool to Parramatta Rapid Bus Transitway Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1. August 2000
K. Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation. South West Rail Link Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment. Submissions Report. May 2007
L. Rouen, France. Brief. Teor Optically Guided Bus
M. MTR Corporation 2006 Annual Report.
N. NSW Auditor General Report Performance Audit, Liverpool to Parramatta Bus Transitway, 2005
O. Parsons Brinckerhoff. Central Sydney Light Rail Transport Operations Study. January 2004
P. KCRC Corporation 2006 Annual Report
Q. Hass-Klau Carmen et.al Bus or Light Rail: Making the right choice. December 2003
Page A.6
10-0477-01-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
R. Alternative Propulsion Concepts. 2005 UITP Conference Presentation
S. Tramways & Urban Transit December 2002. Bordeaux: Fronting the French tramway revolution
T. Transport for London (Docklands Light Railway) Website
U. Bus Rapid Transit Superior to Light Rail: US GAO Report Results
W. PB Lockerbie Light Rail Study
X. RailCorp Civil Engineering Standards 2007
Y. Transek Consultants, Comparison of costs between Bus, PRT, LRT and metro/rail.
Z. Piers Brogan Presentation at ITLS (Brisbane Airport case study)
AA. PB Reference Library – Introduction to BRT
AB. PB Reference Library – Operational Plan
AC. PB Reference Library – Technology
AD. Hensher BRT or Light Rail
AE. PB Transport for London presentation.
AF. PB BRT Cost Comparison presentation (Cliff Henke)
AG. World Bank: Cities on the move: a world bank urban transport strategy review (figures are given as US$ in Sept 2000. These have been converted to Australian at the rate of AUS$1 = US$0.55)
AH. http://ite-espanol.org/meetcon/2005AM/Evans_Tues.pdf
AI. Dick Fleming Transitway presentation
AK. PB Central Sydney Light Rail Transport Operations Study
AL. Ken Gosselin, Busway Experience Downunder presentation (McCormick Rankin Corporation)
AM. National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, Applicability of Bogota’s TransMilenio BRT System to the United States
AN. Mass Transit Options - Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities Module 3a
AO. NSW Gov. – Metro Lines: A Part of Sydney’s Future? 2006
AP. 2006 RailCorp Rail Development Sectorisation. A Compendium of City Rail Travel Statistics Fifth Edition, April 2006
AQ. Breakthrough Technology Institute. Bus Rapid Transit. A cost effective sustainable mobility solution
AR. Based on $2.1 billion CityRail annual operating figure cost divided by the total train kilometres travelled (34,741,200 kms travelled in 2005 Compendium of City Rail Travel Statistics Fifth Edition, April 2006)
AS. Sydney Light Rail Technical Details
th
AT. UITP 5 Bus Conference, 2007, “Results from the UITP Working Group “High Capacity Surface Systems”
AU. FTA (2004), Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.
AV. TCRP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit v2 Implementation Guidelines 2003
AW. Vehicle Catalog: A Compendium of Vehicles and Powertrain Systems for Bus Rapid Transit Service 2006 Update
AX. http://www.2getthere.eu/Bus_Transit/Specifications/Technical_Specification
AY. Reconnecting America – Transit Technologies Worksheet
AZ. http://www.apta.com/research/stats/rail/railcost.cfm
BA. http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/madrid-light-rail/
BB. http://www.emta.com/article.php3?id_article=314
BC. http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/tram-on-tires-guided-light-transit-glt-the-ultimate-guided-bus/
BD. http://www.railwaysafrica.com/2009/02/translohr-for-shanghai/
BE. Based on current public timetable operation
BF. Based on inner city public timetable operation
BH. Based on dedicated ROW corridor public timetable operation
BI. http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/10/
BJ. http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/shanghai/node17256/node18151/userobject22ai31185.html
BK. http://www.transportroundtable.com.au/smart/hensher.pdf
BL. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-home-buyers-on-the-right-track-20100506-udco.html
BM. http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/public_submissions/published/files/486_propertycouncilofaustralia_SUB2.pdf
BN. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/light-rail-to-push-up-house-prices-20100312-q469.html
BO. http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-3S%20Currie.pdf
BP. http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/brt_report.pdf
BQ. Cervero, R, Kang, C D (2009), Bus Rapid Transit Impacts on Land Uses and Land Values in Seoul, Korea, UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport, California, USA
BR. http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1353_671_Rodriguez%20Mojica%20Final.pdf
BS. http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/BRT%20and%20land%20use_97ver_508.pdf
BT. Transport for London
BU. Bordeaux – APS Ground Power Supply System, Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 2005
BV. Cameron Road Corridor Study, Tauranga City Council, Beca Infrastructure LTD, March 2010
BW. http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt02.htm
BX. http://www.jpods.com/JPods/004Studies/CostPerMileOperations_UWa.pdf
BY. http://www.prtstrategies.com/files/LRT_Costs.pdf
CA. http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog002.htm#DBi_20050114
CB. http://www.gobrt.org/CaseStudies.pdf
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-01-2106689A
Page A.7
Appendix A
Mode comparison summary
CC. http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/today-in-china/2010_03_26/On_the_right_track.html
CD. http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/community_development/planning/archives/MTD_Tram_Study.pdf
CE. http://www.emta.com/IMG/pdf/emta_news_23.pdf
CF. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/page/11/
CG. Railway Gazette International (2009), Primove Catenary-free induction tram, http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/10/primove-catenary-free-induction-tram.html
CH. http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q2.htm#BRB_20090605
CI. http://www.lohr.fr/transport-public_gb.htm
CJ. http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/368601/attach2.pdf
CK. http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html
CL. http://glassborocamdenline.com/images/uploads/AppendixD.pdf
Page A.8
10-0477-01-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Appendix B
Operating scenario and costs
Appendix B
Operating scenario and costs
Operating scenario and costs
Assumptions
Distance from Stirling Station to Stirling City Centre
1.00 km
Number of Weekdays
251
per annum
Distance from Stirling City Centre to Glendalough Station
2.40 km
Number of Saturdays
52
per annum
Number of Sundays and Public Holidays
62
per annum
Peak hour percentage of daily trips
10%
Total daily trips as a percentage of weekdays
100%
Weekdays
Average Running Speed
Optimum Capacity
BRT
17.50 km/h
Tram/TransLohr
20.00 km/h
LRT
25.00 km/h
Seated Passengers
100%
of seated capacity
75%
Saturdays
Standing Passengers
75%
of standing capacity
50%
Sundays
Seated
Standing
Total
Cost per Vehicle
Operation Cost per km
Corridor Capital Cost per km
Standard Bus
45
30
75
$400,000
$5.00
$7.50m
Tri-Axel Bus
55
35
90
$450,000
$5.50
$7.50m
Articulated Bus
65
55
120
$600,000
$6.00
$7.50m
30 m Tram
64
115
179
$4,500,000
$10.00
$10.00m
40 m Tram
72
143
215
$5,500,000
$11.00
$12.00m
54 m Tram
58
296
354
$6,000,000
$12.00
$14.00m
72 m Tram
90
440
530
$6,500,000
$13.00
$15.00m
20 m LRT
30
127
157
$3,900,000
$10.00
$15.00m
30 m LRT
68
168
236
$5,500,000
$11.00
$17.50m
40 m LRT
100
210
310
$5,750,000
$12.00
$20.00m
74 m LRT
180
420
600
$6,000,000
$13.00
$22.50m
25 m TransLohr
60
110
170
$2,900,000
$7.25
$8.00m
32 m TransLohr
80
150
230
$3,190,000
$7.25
$9.00m
39 m TransLohr
100
190
290
$3,480,000
$7.25
$10.00m
46 m TransLohr
120
225
345
$3,770,000
$7.25
$11.00m
Please note:
Maintenance cost have not been calculated for the infrastructure or the vehicles.
Spare vehicles have not been included in the calculation for the number of vehicles. A 10% spare ratio should be acceptable
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-01-2106689A
Page B.1
Appendix B
Operating scenario and costs
Bus/Tram/LRT/TransLohr Headways and Required Vehicles
Optimum
Passenger
Load
3000pp/h
3500pp/h
4000pp/h
5000pp/h
6500pp/h
2000pp/h
2500pp/h
3000pp/h
3500pp/h
4000pp/h
5000pp/h
6500pp/h
2000pp/h
2500pp/h
3000pp/h
3500pp/h
4000pp/h
5000pp/h
6500pp/h
Required number of vehicles
2500pp/h
Headways (minutes)
2000pp/h
Vehicles per Hour
Standard Bus
68
30
37
44
52
59
74
96
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
16
21
25
29
33
41
53
Tri-Axel Bus
81
25
31
37
43
49
62
80
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
14
17
21
24
27
34
44
Articulated
Bus
106
19
24
28
33
38
47
61
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
10
13
16
18
21
26
34
30 m Tram
150
13
17
20
23
27
33
43
5
4
3
3
2
2
1
7
8
10
12
13
17
22
40 m Tram
179
11
14
17
20
22
28
36
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
6
7
8
10
11
14
18
54 m Tram
280
7
9
11
13
14
18
23
8
7
6
5
4
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
9
12
72 m Tram
420
5
6
7
8
10
12
15
13
10
8
7
6
5
4
2
3
4
4
5
6
8
20 m LRT
125
16
20
24
28
32
40
52
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
7
9
11
12
14
18
23
30 m LRT
194
10
13
15
18
21
26
34
6
5
4
3
3
2
2
5
6
7
8
9
11
15
40 m LRT
258
8
10
12
14
16
19
25
8
6
5
4
4
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
11
74 m LRT
495
4
5
6
7
8
10
13
15
12
10
8
7
6
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
25 m
TransLohr
143
14
18
21
25
28
35
46
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
7
9
11
12
14
18
23
32 m
TransLohr
193
10
13
16
18
21
26
34
6
5
4
3
3
2
2
5
7
8
9
11
13
17
39 m
TransLohr
243
8
10
12
14
16
21
27
7
6
5
4
4
3
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
14
46 m
TransLohr
289
7
9
10
12
14
17
23
9
7
6
5
4
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
9
11
Total
Optimum frequency = 5
minutes
Page B.2
10-0477-01-2106689A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Appendix B
Operating scenario and costs
Bus/Tram/LRT/TransLohr Capital and Operational Costs
$16.45m
$21.39m
$3.23m $4.04m $4.85m $5.66m $6.47m $8.08m $10.51m
$1,356m $2,104m $3,018m $4,099m $5,346m $8,338m $14,074m
Tri-Axel Bus
$25.5m
$6.15m
$7.69m
$9.23m
$10.76m
$12.30m
$15.38m
$19.99m
$2.96m $3.69m $4.43m $5.17m $5.91m $7.39m $9.60m
$1,035m $1,603m $2,297m $3,118m $4,064m $6,336m $10,691m
Articulated Bus
$25.5m
$6.27m
$7.84m
$9.41m
$10.97m
$12.54m
$15.68m
$20.38m
$2.47m $3.08m $3.70m $4.31m $4.93m $6.16m $8.01m
$670m $1,032m $1,475m $1,998m $2,602m $4,051m $6,829m
30 m Tram
$34.0m
$30.35m
$37.94m
$45.52m
$53.11m
$60.70m
$75.87m
$98.64m
$2.91m $3.63m $4.36m $5.08m $5.81m $7.26m $9.44m
$524m
$799m $1,136m $1,534m $1,994m $3,096m $5,209m
40 m Tram
$40.8m
$31.09m
$38.87m
$46.64m
$54.41m
$62.19m
$77.73m
$101.05m
$2.68m $3.35m $4.02m $4.69m $5.36m $6.70m $8.71m
$419m
$632m
$893m $1,200m $1,555m $2,407m $4,040m
54 m Tram
$47.6m
$21.71m
$27.14m
$32.57m
$38.00m
$43.43m
$54.29m
$70.57m
$1.87m $2.34m $2.81m $3.27m $3.74m $4.68m $6.08m
$217m
$312m
$428m
$566m
$725m $1,106m $1,836m
72 m Tram
$51.0m
$15.68m
$19.60m
$23.52m
$27.44m
$31.37m
$39.21m
$50.97m
$1.35m $1.69m $2.03m $2.36m $2.70m $3.38m $4.39m
$133m
$178m
$234m
$301m
$377m
20 m LRT
$51.0m
$27.32m
$34.15m
$40.98m
$47.81m
$54.64m
$68.30m
$88.78m
$3.49m $4.36m $5.23m $6.10m $6.97m $8.71m $11.33m
$661m $1,005m $1,424m $1,920m $2,492m $3,866m $6,498m
30 m LRT
$59.5m
$24.87m
$31.09m
$37.31m
$43.53m
$49.75m
$62.18m
$80.84m
$2.48m $3.09m $3.71m $4.33m $4.95m $6.19m $8.04m
$339m
$497m
$689m
$917m $1,179m $1,809m $3,016m
40 m LRT
$68.0m
$19.59m
$24.49m
$29.39m
$34.28m
$39.18m
$48.98m
$63.67m
$2.03m $2.54m $3.05m $3.56m $4.07m $5.09m $6.61m
$241m
$339m
$458m
$599m
$761m $1,151m $1,898m
74 m LRT
$76.5m
$10.63m
$13.29m
$15.95m
$18.61m
$21.27m
$26.59m
$34.56m
$1.15m $1.43m $1.72m $2.01m $2.29m $2.87m $3.73m
$127m
$156m
$191m
$232m
$280m
25 m TransLohr
$27.2m
$20.62m
$25.78m
$30.93m
$36.09m
$41.24m
$51.56m
$67.02m
$2.22m $2.78m $3.33m $3.89m $4.44m $5.55m $7.22m
$422m
$644m
$916m $1,236m $1,607m $2,495m $4,198m
32 m TransLohr
$30.6m
$16.79m
$20.99m
$25.19m
$29.39m
$33.58m
$41.98m
$54.58m
$1.64m $2.06m $2.47m $2.88m $3.29m $4.11m $5.34m
$247m
$369m
$517m
$693m
$896m $1,383m $2,316m
39 m TransLohr
$34.0m
$14.54m
$18.18m
$21.81m
$25.45m
$29.08m
$36.35m
$47.26m
$1.31m $1.63m $1.96m $2.28m $2.61m $3.26m $4.24m
$170m
$247m
$341m
$452m
$579m
$886m
$1,474m
46 m TransLohr
$37.4m
$13.23m
$16.54m
$19.85m
$23.15m
$26.46m
$33.08m
$43.00m
$1.10m $1.37m $1.64m $1.92m $2.19m $2.74m $3.56m
$134m
$188m
$254m
$332m
$422m
$638m
$1,053m
$560m
$394m
6500pp/h
5000pp/h
$13.16m
Lowest Cost
4000pp/h
3500pp/h
3000pp/h
2500pp/h
2000pp/h
$11.52m
Highest Cost
6500pp/h
5000pp/h
6500pp/h
$9.87m
10-0477-01-2106689A
4000pp/h
5000pp/h
$8.23m
Lowest Cost
3500pp/h
4000pp/h
$6.58m
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
3000pp/h
3500pp/h
$25.5m
Highest Cost
2500pp/h
3000pp/h
Standard Bus
Lowest Cost
2000pp/h
Lifetime (25 years ) Capital and Operational Cost (excludes maintenance)
2500pp/h
Annual Operation Cost (excludes maintenance)
2000pp/h
Capital Cost
Cost for vehicles (excluding spare vehicles)
$912m
$613m
Highest Cost
Page B.3
Appendix C
Comparative operating
characteristics
Appendix C
Comparative Operating Costs
Time
(Minutes)
Distance
(km)
Average
Speed
(k/Ph)
End of O-Bahn
Track
12
12
60.00
End of O-Bahn
Track
City
7
3.2
27.43
Whole trip
Tea Tree Plaza
City
20
15.2
45.60
T65
Rouse Hill
Town Centre
Parramatta
41
17
24.88
T75
Rouse Hill
Town Centre
Blacktown
25
11.3
27.12
Liverpool to
Parramatta T-Way
T80
Liverpool
Parramatta
56
31
33.21
Brisbane South East
Busway
111
City
Eight Mile
Plains Stn
27
16.5
36.67
CityRail InterCity
Northern Line
Hornsby
Central
36
34
56.67
CityRail Suburban
ECRL
Epping
Chatswood
18
13
43.33
Adelaide Tram line
Glenelg Tram
City
Glenelg
45
12.3
16.40
Adelaide Metro Bus
265
City
Glenelg
35
12.6
21.60
Adelaide Heavy Rail
Outer Harbor
Line
City
Outer Harbor
Stn
39
21.9
33.69
Sydney Light Rail
CBD to
Lilyfield
Central
Lilyfield
25
7.2
17.28
Perth Heavy Rail
Joondalup
Line
Perth
Underground
Clarkson Stn
32
33.2
62.25
Melbourne Tram
Route 75
Segregated
track (centre
of road, cross
streets)
Burwood
Vermont South
17
8
28.24
On-street intraffic running
City - Spencer
St
Burwood
57
15
15.79
Whole trip
City - Spencer
St
Vermont South
74
23
18.65
Melbourne Tram
Route 78
On-street intraffic running
(Whole Trip)
North
Richmond
Prahran
32
7
13.13
Melbourne Tram
Route 96
Segregated
track (old
heavy rail
alignment)
South
Melbourne
St Kilda
10
4.5
27.00
On-street intraffic running
East Brunswick
South
Melbourne via
CBD
42
9.5
13.57
St Kilda
St Kilda Beach
East Brunswick
St Kilda Beach
via City
52
14
16.15
Service
Adelaide O-Bahn
Nth-West T-Way
Route
From
To
O-Bahn Track
Tea Tree Plaza
Non O-Bahn
Track
Whole trip
Source: Sydney Metro
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
10-0477-01-2106689A
Page C.1
Appendix D
Stirling City Centre- Light Rail
Feasibility Study - Phase 2 TOD
Trips Model Working Paper
Stirling City Centre
- Light Rail Feasibility Study
- Phase 2 TOD Trips Model
Working Paper
October 2010
City of Stirling
Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited
ABN 80 078 004 798
Level 27, Ernst & Young Centre
680 George Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
GPO Box 5394
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Australia
Telephone +61 2 9272 5100
Facsimile
+61 2 9272 5101
Email
sydney@pb.com.au
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AS/NZS 4801
2106689A-PR_2812
A+ GRI Rating: Sustainability Report 2009
Revision
Details
Date
Amended By
Original
©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited (PB) [2010].
Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of PB. This
document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or
reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by PB. PB makes no representation,
undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.
Author:
T Ton..........................................................................................
Signed:
...................................................................................................
Reviewer:
Dick Fleming...............................................................................
Signed:
...................................................................................................
Approved by:
Dick Fleming...............................................................................
Signed:
...................................................................................................
Date:
21 October 2010 .........................................................................
Distribution:
...................................................................................................
Please note that when viewed electronically this document may contain pages that have been intentionally left blank. These
blank pages may occur because in consideration of the environment and for your convenience, this document has been set up
so that it can be printed correctly in double-sided format.
2106689A-PR_2812
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Contents
Page number
1.
2.
Introduction
1
1.1
Background
1
1.2
TODTrips model
1
1.3
Report outline
2
Model scope
3
2.1
Introduction
3
2.2
Study area and zone system
3
2.3
Representation of network, services and access among zones
6
2.4
Public transport scenarios for 2031
7
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
3.
4.
Scenario 1 – Base case (Bus)
Scenario 2 – Street Car
Scenario 3A – LRT
Scenario 3B – BRT
Scenario 4 – LRT (single sided)
8
9
10
11
12
Land use considerations
15
3.1
Overview
15
3.2
Study area land use
15
3.3
3.2.1
Methodology
3.2.2
2031 land use development
External zones
15
15
19
Trip generation and distribution
21
4.1
Overview
21
4.2
Trip generation
21
4.3
Trip distribution
22
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
22
23
23
Overview
Internal trips
External trips
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page i
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Contents
(Continued)
Page number
5.
Mode choice model
25
5.1
Model structure
25
5.2
5.1.1
Mode choice model for internal trips (I-I)
5.1.2
Mode choice model for external trips (I-E and E-I movements)
Travel attributes
25
26
27
5.3
5.2.1
Overview
5.2.2
Car travel
5.2.3
Public transport travel
5.2.4
Walking and cycling
Generalised costs of travel
27
28
29
29
30
5.3.1
5.3.2
6.
7.
Page ii
Formulating generalised costs to represent different trip segments between origin
and destination
30
Weighting trip segments used in calculating generalised costs of travel
32
Assessment result of five transit modal scenarios
35
6.1
Internal trips – mode share and ridership estimates
35
6.2
External trips – mode share and ridership estimates
36
6.3
Combined internal and external trips - mode share and ridership estimates
38
Conclusions
41
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Contents
(Continued)
Page number
List of tables
Page number
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Table 6.11
Existing Public Transport’s operating environment for Stirling
7
Scenario base (Bus) operating environment
8
Scenario S2 (Street Car) operating environment
9
Scenario 3A (LRT) operating environment
10
Scenario 3B (BRT) operating environment
11
Scenario 4 (LRT sided) operating environment
12
Distribution of GFAs across different land uses for Stirling study area in 2031
16
Average household size for different types of dwellings
17
2
Floor space in m per employee from Syme Marmion & Co report and RTA NSW
Guideline
17
2
Adjusted average number of employees per 100 m GFA based on SMC and RTA NSW’s
guideline
18
Population and employment estimates for different land use categories in Stirling study
area in 2031
18
Population and employment estimates for Stirling Study Area in 2031
18
List of 33 external zones of TODTrips model for Stirling Study
19
2
Adjusted Average Daily Trip per 100 m GFA based on SMC and RTA NSW’s Guideline21
Trip generation estimates for different land use categories in Stirling Study area in 203122
Average Daily Trip Generation estimates for Stirling Study area in 2031
22
Distribution of Average Daily Trips generated from Study Area in 2031
24
Attributes of main travel mode used in the Stirling Study
28
Generalised cost weights
33
Low car use – Mode share for internal trips
35
High car use scenario – Mode share of internal trips
35
Low car use scenario – ridership share among different transport modes for internal trips36
High car use scenario – ridership share among different transport modes for internal trips36
Distribution of regional access and egress by external trips into and out of study area (I-E
and E-I movements)
37
Modal split of external trips using local transit services
37
Ridership estimates of external trips (I-E and E-I movements) using local transit services38
Low car use – Mode share for combined internal and external trips
38
High car use – Mode share for combined internal and external trips
39
Low car use – ridership estimates for combined internal and external trips
39
High car use – ridership estimates for combined internal and external trips
39
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page iii
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Contents
(Continued)
Page number
List of figures
Page number
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.8
Figure 3.1
Figure 4.1
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Stirling study area
TODTrips zone system
Stop locations of existing public transport service
Stop locations of new local bus service in Scenario 1
Stop locations of street car service in Scenario 2
Stop locations of LRT service in Scenario 3A
Stop locations of BRT service in Scenario 3B
Stop locations of LRT (sided) service in Scenario 4
Study area by groups of precincts
Trip distribution modeling – scope and assumption used for Stirling Study
Mode choice model structure for internal trips (I-I)
Mode choice model structure for external trips (I-E and E-I)
Trip’s segments represented by TODTrips
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
23
26
27
32
Appendices
Appendix A
TODTrips Trip Generation Model Land Use and Trip Rates (Source: SMC 2010 and RTA 2002)
Appendix B
TODTrips Trip Distribution Model and Parameters
Appendix C
TODTrips Mode Choice Parameters
Appendix D
Speed values used for different transport modes in TODTrips
Appendix E
Other model parameters used in TODTrips
Appendix F
Public Transport fare rates
Page iv
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
1.
Introduction
1.1
Background
As part of the Stirling City Centre (SCC) - Light Rail Feasibility – Phase 2 study, Parsons
Brinckerhoff (PB) conducted a desktop assessment of five alternative modal and operating
environments options that could be available to serve the SCC. The range of options starts
from bus on street, street car (tram on street), bus and light rail in exclusive lanes with
priority (BRT and LRT) and light rail on single side (LRT sided).
This report describes the development of the public transport model using the TOD Trips
package to estimate number of passenger trips for the 2031 proposed land use plan and
ridership of the five alternative modes. Five alternative modal scenarios are:

Base case with 2031 bus option

Street Car

LRT

BRT

LRT (Single sided).
The section of the Northern Railway Line to Joondalup between Stirling and Glendalough
stations, local route 413 bus service, Circle Bus route 98/99 and route 400 were included in
every scenario.
1.2
TODTrips model
The TODTrips model has been developed for the study area in consultation with the Stirling
Alliance team. Input from other stakeholders has also been facilitated through a series of
transport modelling meetings and workshops. The model has been developed to test a range
of public transport scenarios for the Stirling City Centre. The main principle of the TODTrips
package is the combination of detailed mode choice modelling with assumptions about trip
generation, distribution and car travel attributes based on the Department of Planning’s
STEM strategic transport model. This approach is designed to allow the rapid development
and testing the relative performance of a range of scenarios based on future assumptions
regarding land use and transport.
The development of assumptions regarding future land use and transport is an important
part of the model development process. It is intended to inform the specification of
assumptions regarding the 2031 study area.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 1
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
The following outlines the broad capabilities and limitations of the TODTrips model:
Capabilities

detailed modelling of land use patterns, including the distribution of population and
employment inside the study area

detailed modelling of transport networks inside the study area including walk access,
public transport lines and services bus, street car LRT, BRT routes and services, and
rail stations and services

sophisticated generalised cost mode choice model for four main modes of travel – car,
public transport, cycle and walk

modelling of daily trips for all purposes that start and/or end in the study area.
Limitations
1.3

coarse representation of zones outside the study area – modelling of links to key origins
and destinations

no modelling of detail road and traffic network – assumptions are made about car travel
attributes

no modelling of trips that start and end outside the study area – that is, no modelling of
through trips.
Report outline
This report is presented in the following sections:
Page 2
Section 2 –
Model Scope – description of the overall TODTrips model
Section 3 –
Land Use Modelling – description of the way land use patterns are
modelled
Section 4 –
Trip Generation and Distribution – description of the procedure for
estimating the quantity and distribution of average daily trips
Section 5 -
Mode Choice Modelling – details of the mode choice modelling
component
Section 6 -
Car use and public transport ridership for different scenarios.
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
2.
Model scope
2.1
Introduction
Key features associated with the TODTrips modelling platform applicable to the Light Rail
Feasibility – Phase 2 study include:

modelling of land use according to zoning types and floor space ratios

modelling of higher density land use around selected transport nodes

detailed modelling of bus and rail services together with consideration of alternative
transit options including Street Car, Light Rail (LRT), BRT and LRT on single side

modelling of public transport travel to key regional zones around study area

estimation of daily trip patterns

mode choice modelling based on generalised cost for car, public transport, cycling and
walk trips.
The primary focus of TODTrips is the rapid development and testing of a range of scenarios
related to land use and transport planning.
TODTrips model focused on the average daily person trips for all trip purposes for year
2031.
2.2
Study area and zone system
The study area consists of Stirling Centre and Osbourne Park as shown by the red dashed
line in Figure 2.1. The development of TODTrips zones was based on detailed structure plan
as well as STEM Travel Zones (TZs). The geographic scope of TODTrips encompasses the
City of Stirling metropolitan region but with varying levels of aggregation – a finer zone
system with 147 small zones was used within the study area with 33 key regional zones
(broadly based on local government areas) covering the metropolitan area. Figure 2.2
depicts 147 internal zone system which was used for detailed modelling of land use and
transport.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 3
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 2.1
Page 4
Stirling study area
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 2.2
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
TODTrips zone system
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 5
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
2.3
Representation of network, services and access among
zones
TODTrips models incorporate a full detailed representation of transit network and associated
services within the study area. A number of TODTrips components were used to represent
the transit network:

GIS Point Objects: Components of this type represent the foundation of TODTrips
spatial modelling toolbox as it provides the interface to the GIS and extract spatial data
(i.e. x, y coordinates) to support the construction of network within TODTrips. GIS point
objects were used to represent zone shapes (polygon) for zones within study area
(internal zones), zone centroids (a single GIS point) for internal and external zones
(outside study area) and transit stops (GIS point).

Transit stops: Transit stops for any transit mode including bus, rail, street car, LRT and
BRT are represented in detail within TODTrips. Key attributes of transit stops include
Stop ID, Stop Name, Type of service (local and or regional services), and station with or
without park-and-ride, transit modes, access fare, average platform access time and
location with coordinates updated by GIS Points Objects.

Lines and line segments: Every transit line is made up of a number of line segments.
Each line segment is defined by two stops at the end points. Distance between these
two end points defines the length of each segment. Given travel speed value, travel
time on every segment can then be updated. Travel cost on every segment can also be
updated with value of time of transit riders ($ per hour). Every transit line is associated
with a number of public transport services so it can keep track of any change in service
such as stopping pattern and time table.

Transit services: Each transit service can be specified and associated with any
particular transit line. Key service data includes Service ID, name, direction, stopping
patterns, frequency of service and timetable data. If timetable data is not available then
the travel time on any line segment can then be updated from travel speed.
For non transit modes of travel within study area, local access/egress and or external
access/egress, straight line links were used to represent the following cases:
Page 6

Zone to zone access by non transit modes including car, walk and cycling
modes: Straight line based centroid connectors were used to represent zone to zone
access by non transit mode including car, walk and cycling. Different route directness
factors were used to improve network representation for these main modes (see
Appendices for model parameters and other assumptions).

Local access and egress to and from zone to every transit stop by different
access modes: A straight line link was used to connect origin zone centroids and every
transit stop in the study area. For every origin zone TODTrips calculates the walk
access distances to the closest transit stops. This feature offers more flexible and more
detailed approach in examining the impact of specifying local access mode to the
overall travel mode choice which normally includes local access to transit, in vehicle
time using a particular transit mode and local egress. Detailed mode choice structure for
internal to internal (I-I) movement within study area will be presented in more detailed in
Section 4 of this report.
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper

2.4
External access and egress to and from external zone to regional and or local
transit stop by different access modes: A straight line link was used to connect origin
external zone centroid and any specified transit stop in the study area. Different external
access and/or egress modes and associated speeds can be specified, for example
appropriate speeds for Regional Rail or Regional Bus services.
Public transport scenarios for 2031
TODTrips incorporates the following main modes of travel:

car – driver and passenger combined

walk and cycling combined

rail (access via Glendalough and Stirling Stations within study area)

bus (include local and regional bus services that pass through the study area)

alternative transit options including bus, street car, LRT, BRT and LRT on single side.
Five scenarios were setup in TODTrips to represent five alternative modal options and
operating environments that could be considered to serve the SCC in 2031. In general, the
broad operating environment for each scenario was set up to maintain appropriate existing
public transport services with the addition of a new mode with a specified level of service.
Existing public transport services within the study area are described in Table 2.1 and
Figure 2.1. The Northern rail service has Stirling and Glendalough stations as the key rail
access points within study area. The speed and frequency of the Northern rail service are
based on Transperth time table. The operating characteristics of bus services
(including 98/99, 413 and 400) such as speed, number of stops and frequency of services
were made available to the TODTrips study team by the PTA.
Table 2.1
Service
1
Existing Public Transport’s operating environment for Stirling
Line ID
Joondalup
Mode
Rail
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
4
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
4
4
400
Regional bus
24.2
4
4
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 7
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 2.3
Stop locations of existing public transport service
These existing public transport services were included in every scenario and operating
environment which will be described in the following sections
2.4.1
Scenario 1 – Base case (Bus)
Table 2.2
Service
Scenario base (Bus) operating environment
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
4
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
4
4
400
Regional bus
24.2
4
4
5
Base
Local bus
15.0
13
4
Apart from the existing public transport services (Joondalup rail, 98/99, 413 and 400 bus
services), new service is highlighted in Table 2.2 as Service number 5 and labelled as Base.
In this scenario, a local bus service is tested with 13 stops (see Figure 2.4), average speed
of 15 kph and run every 15 minutes.
Page 8
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 2.4
2.4.2
Stop locations of new local bus service in Scenario 1
Scenario 2 – Street Car
Apart from the existing public transport services (Joondalup rail, 98/99, 413 and 400 bus
services), a new service is highlighted in Table 2.3 as Service number 5 and labelled as S2.
In this scenario, a street car (or tram) is tested with 19 stops (see Figure 2.5), average speed
of 15 kph and run every 5 minutes. It should be noted that the operating speed of service
400 is reduced from 24.2 kph down to 15 kph mainly due to safety as both the street car and
service 400 could share the road space on the Scarborough Beach Road and general traffic
including bus service 400 would have to give way to passengers alighting and boarding at
tram stops.
Table 2.3
Scenario S2 (Street Car) operating environment
Service
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
4
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
4
4
400
Regional bus
15.0
4
4
5
S2
Street car
15.0
19
12
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 9
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 2.5
2.4.3
Stop location of street car service in Scenario 2
Scenario 3A – LRT
Apart from the existing public transport services (Joondalup rail, 98/99, 413 and 400 bus
services), a new service is highlighted in Table 2.4 as Service number 5 and labelled as
S3A. In this scenario, a dedicated LRT is tested with 11 stops (see Figure 2.6), average
speed of 20 kph and run every 5 minutes. It should be noted that the operating speed of
service 400 is reduced from 24.2 kph down to 20 kph mainly due to safety as both the LRT
and service 400 would share the road space on the Scarborough Beach Road. However, the
planned speed for the bus service 400 is still higher than in Scenario S2 with Street Car as
passenger alighting and boarding at LRT stops will be more protected with LRT.
Table 2.4
Service
Page 10
Scenario 3A (LRT) operating environment
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
3
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
9
4
400
Regional bus
20.0
4
4
5
S3A
LRT
20.0
11
12
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 2.6
2.4.4
Stop locations of LRT service in Scenario 3A
Scenario 3B – BRT
The operating environment of this scenario is identical to Scenario 3A in terms of existing
public transport services and the alignment and associated stopping patterns of the new
mode (see Figure 2.4). The only difference is that the new mode is changed from LRT to
BRT and the frequency of service is reduced from 12 to 4 services per hour.
Table 2.5
Service
Scenario 3B (BRT) operating environment
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
3
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
9
4
400
Regional bus
20.0
4
4
5
S3B
BRT
20.0
11
4
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 11
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 2.7
2.4.5
Stop locations of BRT service in Scenario 3B
Scenario 4 – LRT (single sided)
This scenario was constructed as a variation to Scenario S3A which is also a LRT option.
However, the LRT proposed in this scenario is only operating on the southern side of
Scarborough Beach Road (western side on Stephenson Boulevard). This mode of operation
might create some distance constraints for residents on the northern side of Scarborough
Beach Road as they might need to walk extra distance to pedestrian crossing to be able to
cross Scarborough Beach Road. This extra walking distance (currently assumed to be
30 metres) was added to the utility function for those zones affected by this scenario.
Table 2.6
Scenario 4 (LRT sided) operating environment
Service
Page 12
Line ID
Mode
Speed (km/h)
Stops
Frequency
1
Joondalup
Rail
58.5
2
3
2
98/99
Regional bus
24.2
3
3
3
413
Local bus
19.5
9
9
4
400
Regional bus
15.0
4
4
5
S4
LRT Side
17.5
16
12
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 2.8
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stop locations of LRT (sided) service in Scenario 4
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 13
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
3.
Land use considerations
3.1
Overview
TODTrips model incorporates a detailed modelling of land use development
proposals/assumptions within the study area for each internal zone. The purpose of the land
use modelling component of the model is to comprehensively represent the proposed future
zoning of the area and land use intensities in order to estimate the quantum and distribution
of future population and employment. By this method the impacts of increased densities in
certain areas and changes in designated use are captured within the model.
3.2
Study area land use
3.2.1
Methodology
Figure 2.2 above shows the zoning system used in the study area. A total of 147 model
zones were used to represent the 2031 future land use zoning for the Stirling study area.
Gross Floor Areas (GFAs) and number of dwellings and dwelling types for each zone were
specified as main input to the land use modelling module of TODTrips. These input data
together with the rate of household size per dwelling and GFA (in m2) per employee for
different types of developments were used to determine population and employment figures
for 2031 base case.
The identification of relevant references and selection of suitable rates for estimating
population and employment levels for different GFAs by different land use categories was an
important task in the methodology. This procedure is described in detail in the following
section.
3.2.2
2031 land use development
There are a number of recent studies (SKM in 2010 and Syme Marmion (SMC) in 2009)
which focused for two key areas of the study area. As indicated on Figure 3.1, these two
areas are Stirling Centre (labelled as precincts 1–7) and Osborne Park (labelled as precincts
8 and 9). Land use planning for these two areas and their contribution to the development of
the whole study area in 2031 can be viewed by the distribution of GFAs across residential,
retail, office, commercial, industrial and education land uses (see Table 3.1).
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 15
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Page 16
Figure 3.1
Study area by groups of precincts
Table 3.1
Distribution of GFAs across different land uses for Stirling study area
in 2031
Residential
Retail
Office
Commercial
Industrial
Education
Dwellings
GFA
(m2)
GFA
(m2)
GFA
(m2)
GFA
(m2)
GFA
(m2)
Precincts 1 to 7
13049
177747
322505
139498
175000
30000
Precincts 8 & 9
(Osborne Park)
5500
70000
375000
650000
900000
0
Total (study area)
18549
247747
697505
789498
1075000
30000
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
This distribution of GFAs across different land uses for Osborne Park are similar to the SMC
mid range figures documented in its report (Table 19 – Projected Centre Parameter Values
2
as at 2031) except that an extra 650,000 m was added to the commercial land use category
following consultation with the Stirling Alliance team.
The household size per dwelling from the 2002 RTA New South Wales’s Guide to Traffic
Generating Developments was adopted to estimate population figure for the Stirling study
area (see Table 3.2).
Table 3.2
Average household size for different types of dwellings
Dwelling type
Average household size
Houses
3.0
Townhouses
2.5
Apartments
1.5
(Source: RTA NSW (2002) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments)
The selection of suitable rates for estimating employment figures for different GFAs was
based on two references. The first reference was the RTA New South Wales’s Guide to
Traffic Generating Developments (2002). The second source which was a study carried out
by Syme Marmion & Co (SMC) in 2009 on the Scarborough Beach Road Population and
2
Land Use Study. Table 3.3 compiles the floor space (in m ) per employee which are used in
RTA and SMC reports.
Table 3.3
2
Floor space in m per employee from Syme Marmion & Co report and
RTA NSW Guideline
From Syme Marmion Report (2009)
From RTA NSW (2002)
Shop/Retail
30
NA
Other Retail
63
NA
Retail (Average)
45
10.53(*)
Office (Average)
25.5
21.05
Commercial (Average)
NA
21.05
Industrial (Average)
114
21.05
Education (Average)
NA
21.05
Note: (*) Retail average value for floor space (in m2) per employee was not available from RTA and was assumed in
the initial calculation.
2
Comparing the floor space (in m ) per employee in Table 3.3 reveals that there are marked
differences among the two references. The RTA NSW values are much lower than the
values reported by Syme Marmion & Co Study. The Syme Marmion & Co (SMC)’s values of
floor space per employees was adopted as the study was more recent (2009) than the RTA
NSW (2002) and likely to be more relevant to the study area.
The floor space ratios per employee from the two sources were calculated in Table 3.4.
These ratios were used to adjust the values used in 2002 RTA Guideline for average number
2
of employees per 100 m GFA.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 17
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
2
Table 3.4
Adjusted average number of employees per 100 m GFA based on SMC
and RTA NSW’s guideline
2
Average number of employees per 100m GFA
Type of land use
SMC equivalent rate
RTA rate
Adjusted RTA rate
Retail (Average)
2.2
9.50
2.2
Office (Average)
3.9
4.75
3.9
Commercial (Average)
NA
4.75
3.9
Industrial (Average)
0.9
4.75
0.9
Education (Average)
NA
4.75
3.9
2
Given the adopted rate of household size per dwelling and GFA (in m ) per employee for
different types of developments, the population and employment for Stirling study area in
2031 can be calculated as shown in detailed in Table 3.5 for Stirling Centre and Osborne
Park across different land uses.
Table 3.5
Population and employment estimates for different land use categories
in Stirling study area in 2031
Jobs
GFA (m2)
Jobs
GFA (m2)
Jobs
GFA (m2)
Jobs
Precincts 1 to 7
13049
19574
177747
3910
322505
12578
139498
5440
175000
1575
30000
1170
Precincts 8 & 9
(Osborne Park)
5500
8250
70000
1540
375000
14625
650000
25350
900000
8100
0
0
Total
18549
27824
247747
5450
697505
27203
789498
30790
1075000
9675
30000
1170
Table 3.6 provides a summary table of population and employment for Stirling Centre and
Osborne Park. A total number of around 74,300 jobs were estimated for Stirling study area
with Osborne Park contributing two thirds of employment (49,600 jobs) and Stirling Centre,
one third (24,700 jobs). In contrast to employment figures, Stirling Centre contributes two
thirds of population level (19,600 people) and the remaining third in Osborne Park)
8,300 people).
Table 3.6
Page 18
Educational
GFA (m2)
Industrial
Jobs
Commercial
GFA (m2)
Office
Population
Retail
Dwellings
Residential
Population and employment estimates for Stirling Study Area in 2031
Population
Employment
Precincts 1 to 7
19574
24673
Precincts 8 & 9 (Osborne Park)
8250
49615
Total
27824
74288
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
3.3
External zones
A total of 33 external zones was established to represent travel movement from within the
study area to outside the Stirling study area (denoted as I-E for Internal to External
movement) and from outside travel to the study area (E-I for External to Internal movement).
These 33 external zones consist of 31 LGAs and Stirling LGA remainder. The Stirling LGA
remainder was represented by 2 external zones and labelled as Stirling Remainder East and
Stirling Remainder West. Apart from car mode, the availability of transport access to and
from these external zones to the study area by either regional bus and or rail service was
specified in the network input to TODTrips (see Table 3.7).
Section 4 of this report describes how travel between the study area and these external
zones is modelled within TODTrips.
Table 3.7
List of 33 external zones of TODTrips model for Stirling Study
Number
LGA
Regional rail access
Regional bus access
1
Wanneroo
True
False
2
Joondalup
True
False
3
Stirling Remainder West
False
True
4
Stirling Remainder East
False
True
5
Cambridge
False
True
6
Subiaco
False
True (*)
7
Nedlands
True
False
8
Claremont
True
False
9
Cottesloe
True
True
10
Peppermint Grove
True
True
11
Mosman Park
True
True
12
Perth
True
True
13
Vincent
False
True
14
Bayswater
True
False
15
Bassendean
True
False
16
Swan
True
False
17
Mundaring
True
False
18
Kalamunda
True
False
19
Belmont
True
True
20
Victoria Park
True
True
21
South Perth
True
False
22
Melville
True
False
23
East Fremantle
True
True
24
Fremantle
True
True
25
Cockburn
True
False
26
Canning
True
False
27
Gosnells
True
False
28
Armadale
True
False
29
Serpentine-Jarrahdale
True
False
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 19
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Number
30
LGA
Regional rail access
Regional bus access
Kwinana
True
False
31
Rockingham
True
False
32
Murray
True
False
33
Mandurah
True
False
Note: (*) Assume a service providing direct connection will be available in 2031
Page 20
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
4.
Trip generation and distribution
4.1
Overview
The TODTrips model focuses on the average weekday all trip purpose trips. Estimates are
made of person trip productions and attractions for each zone inside the study area based
on the land use development input for 2031 as described in Section 3. These person trips
are then distributed internally as well as across the external zones. The model does not
include trips that start and end outside the study area – thus, any trips that may pass through
the study area are not included.
4.2
Trip generation
Estimates of average daily person trip productions and attractions were made within
TODTrips for each study area zone using trip rates applied to population for residential
centres and employment GFAs for employment centres. For residential zones, the average
week day trip rate per person value of 3.75 trips per person is adopted from the RTA New
South Wales’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002).
For employment centres, the selection of suitable trip rates for trip productions and
attractions were based on two sources as described in Section 3. As discussed, there are
marked differences in the floor space ratios per employee from the two sources. The
adjusted average daily trips per 100 square metres based on the values from SMC and
RTA’s GFA per employee from Table 3.3 above are presented in Table 4.1. These ratios
were used to adjust the values used in 2002 RTA Guideline for average daily trip rate per
100 square metres.
Table 4.1
2
Adjusted Average Daily Trip per 100 m GFA based on SMC and RTA
NSW’s Guideline
Average Daily Trip rates per 100 sqm GFA
Type of land use
SMC and RTA’s GFA
per employee ratio
RTA Average Daily
Trip rate per 100 sqm
Adjusted Average
Daily Trip rate based
on RTA and SMC
Retail (Average)
4.29
86
20
Office (Average)
1.21
11
9
Commercial (Average)
NA
11
9
Industrial (Average)
5.42
5.5
1
Education (Average)
NA
11
9
2
Table 4.2 provides a detailed table of GFAs (in m ) and trip generation estimates for Stirling
Centre and Osborne Park from residential, retail, office, commercial, industrial and education
land use types.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 21
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Table 4.2
Trip generation estimates for different land use categories in Stirling
Study area in 2031
Person trips
in & out
GFA (m2)
Person trips
in & out
GFA (m2)
Person trips
in & out
GFA (m2)
Person trips
in & out
Educational
GFA (m2)
Industrial
Person trips
in & out
Commercial
GFA (m2)
Office
Person trips
in & out
Retail
Population
Residential
Precincts 1 to 7
19574
73400
177747
35550
322505
29026
139498
12554
175000
1750
30000
2700
Precincts 8 & 9
(Osborne Park)
8250
30929
70000
14000
375000
33750
650000
58500
900000
9000
0
0
Total
27824
104329
247747
49550
697505
62776
789498
71054
1075000
10750
30000
2700
Even though there are differences in land use types and the level of development for Stirling
Centre and Osborne Park, the daily trip generation estimates for the two areas are
contributing equally to the trip generated from the whole study area. As indicated in
Table 4.3, Stirling Centre contributes 51% and Osborne Park contributes 49% to the total of
around 300,000 person trips from the study area.
Table 4.3
4.3
Average Daily Trip Generation estimates for Stirling Study area in 2031
Total daily person trips in and out
Percent
Precincts 1 to 7
154981
51%
Precincts 8 & 9 (Osborne Park)
146181
49%
Total
301162
100%
Trip distribution
4.3.1
Overview
TODTrips model handles trip distribution differently to most traditional four-step models by
using a combination of specified parameters and gravity model techniques. Trip distribution
is done in this way to avoid problems that can arise from uncontrolled application of a gravity
model to growth areas where new trip productions are sometimes distributed to a small
number of local zones.
For this study, the modelling of future scenarios is based on changes in travel patterns within
the study area, and to and from the study area. In order to support this modelling
requirement, detailed representation of study area of 147 zones was maintained. In addition,
the transport access and interaction between the 147 zones within study area (internal
zones) and external 33 LGAs are also modelled within TODTrips. Figure 4.1 describes
modelling scope and assumptions used in distributing trips generated from the study area.
Page 22
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 4.1
Trip distribution modelling – scope and assumption used for Stirling
Study
The objective of the trip distribution module is to distribute trips across the following:

Internal trips – those inter-zonal trips that start and end inside the study area (labelled
as I-I in Figure 4.1) and

External trips – those inter-zonal that pass between internal and external zones
(labelled as I-E and E-I in Figure 4.1).
4.3.2
Internal trips
The total amount of internal trips within the study area is assumed to be 30.5% of total
number of trips generated by the study area. This self containment figure of 30.5% is based
on the output from STEM model for year 2031. Given a total number of around 300,000 trips
generated from the study area, the total amount of internal trips within the study area is
equal to some 92,000 daily trips (=30.5% x 301162 trips). This total trip figure of 92,000 daily
trips together with the zonal trip production and trip attraction are the key input to the
distribution model (applying a gravity model). A detailed description of the gravity model is
presented in Appendix B.
4.3.3
External trips
The output from 2031 STEM model indicates that the total amount of internal trips within
study area is estimated to be 30.5% and remaining 69.5% of total number of daily trips
generated from the study area consists of trips that have either origin or destination from
outside study area. Table 4.4 provides detailed distribution of approximately 300,000 daily
trips generated from the study area among internal zones and in relation to the external
zones.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 23
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Table 4.4
Distribution of Average Daily Trips generated from Study Area in 2031
Destination
Page 24
Origin
Internal
(147 zones)
Origin
Total daily trips
produced from study
area
Internal
(147 zones)
I-I matrix
Dimension = 147 x 147
Daily trips in = 46026
Daily trips out = 46026
I-E matrix
Dimension = 147x33
Daily trips out =
104555
150581
=46026 (I-I trips)
Plus
104555 (I-E trips)
External
(33 zones)
E-I matrix
Dimension = 33 x 147
Daily trips in = 104555
Not included in the
model
Total daily trips
attracted into study
area
150581
=46026 (I-I trips)
Plus
104555 (E-I trips)
Total daily trips to and
from study
301162
(= 150581 + 150581)
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
5.
Mode choice model
5.1
Model structure
Two mode choice models were developed for estimating the mode choice of internal trips
(I-I) and external trips, respectively. Description of these different two mode choice models
are presented in the following sections.
5.1.1
Mode choice model for internal trips (I-I)
Figure 5-1 describes the structure of the mode choice model used for representing the
internal trips (I-I) within Stirling study area. The model structure is a nested logit model with
two levels. At the top level, a total of three travel choices are considered to be available.
They are car, cycle and walk and transit. The car mode includes the use of any private
motorised vehicle as driver or passenger. Cycle and walk trips are those trips where these
are the only modes used (that is, a walk / bus trip is classified as a bus trip). Transit choice
set considers all public transport modes that are available to a specific scenario. As
described section 2 above, rail choice (i.e. Northern line between Stirling and Glendalough
stations) and existing bus choices (include services 98/99, 400 and 413) are present in the
choice set of public transport for every scenario. Available alternative transport modes
specified are 2031 Bus (Base scenario), Street car (scenario S2), LRT (scenario S3A), BRT
(scenario S3B) and LRT one-sided (scenario 4).
In general, the structure is intended to replicate expected mode choice behaviour in that it
assumes people first consider whether to use car, walk and cycle or transit (higher level
choice set) and then consider specific public transport mode within transit choice set which
includes rail, bus and alternative mode such as street car, LRT, or BRT. Walk is modelled as
the access mode to transit stations.
At each level of the nested model, the split among alternatives is done as a multinomial logit
based on estimated generalised costs of the alternatives. At higher levels, the composite
generalised costs representing transit choice is calculated as the log sum of utility in the
transit choice set. The following formulas applied to all alternative choices at the top and at
the transit level.
For every OD (origin destination) pair, N probabilities pi are calculated to represent travel’s
preferences among N choices. In the formulae below, pi represents the probability of
selecting choice i to travel from origin O to destination D. For simplicity, the two subscripts
O and D are dropped in the formulae. exp() is a exponential function and GCi is generalised
cost for choosing choice i to travel between OD. It is a linear function of the set of observed
travel attributes that influence choice i. The sum of pi is equal to 1.
pi =
exp( GCi )
j=N
∑ exp(GC j )
j =1
At each level of the nested model, the split among alternatives is done using the logit formula
pi as a multinomial logit based on estimated generalised costs of the alternatives. At higher
levels, the composite generalised costs representing transit choice is calculated as the log
sum of utility in the transit choice set.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 25
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Figure 5.1
5.1.2
Mode choice model structure for internal trips (I-I)
Mode choice model for external trips (I-E and E-I movements)
Figure 5.2 describes the structure of the mode choice model used for representing the
external trips to and from study area (E-I and I-E movements). The model structure is similar
to the structure of mode choice for internal trips as it is also a nested logit model with two
levels. However, the difference is at the top level where car, regional rail and regional bus
are the three travel choices are available. This model structure is used for representing both
E-I and I-E movements as follows:
Page 26

Car was considered as the only main mode with direct access between external zones
and internal zone.

Regional rail and regional bus were modelled as the two transit modes providing
external access (for E-I movements) or external egress (for I-E movements) to connect
external zones to regional stations located within study area. Regional rail stations are
Stirling and Glendalough stations. Regional bus stations include stops of service
400 and service 98/99.

Transfer by walk mode represents the travel segments connecting regional rail and
regional bus stops to the nearest stops of local transit network.
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper

Transit choice set considers all local public transport modes that are available to a
specific scenario. As described Section 2 above, rail choice (i.e. Joondalup line between
Stirling and Glendalough stations) and existing bus choices (include services 98/99,
400 and 413) are present in the choice set of public transport for every scenario.
Available alternative transport modes specified are 2031 Bus (Base scenario), Street
Car (Scenario S2), LRT (Scenario S3A), BRT (Scenario S3B) and LRT sided
(Scenario 4).

Walk represents the local access mode (for I-E movements) or local egress mode (for
E-I movements) to and from local transit network of rail, bus, street car, LRT and BRT.
Figure 5.2
5.2
Mode choice model structure for external trips (I-E and E-I)
Travel attributes
5.2.1
Overview
The mode choice model is based upon generalised cost estimates for alternative modes
which, in turn, are based upon estimates of travel attributes. The PT model uses the
following processes for estimating travel attributes for different modes:

car – travel attributes including travel times and costs are specified outside the model
(that is, there is no modelling of the traffic network)

public transport – travel attributes, including travel time, walk access/egress time, wait
time, transfers and fares, are estimated within the PT model based on specified public
transport routes and services
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 27
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper

walking and cycling – walk and cycle travel times are estimated based on specified
average speeds and distance factors.
Generalised costs for travel between each zone pair are built separately for each of these
three modes based on the estimated travel attributes.
Table 5.1 below provides a summary of the travel attributes for each mode in the Stirling
study.
Table 5.1
Attributes of main travel mode used in the Stirling Study
Travel mode
Attributes
Car operating costs
Car
In-vehicle time
Other costs (parking, toll)
Walk & cycle
Walk or cycle time
Walk or cycle long distance constraints
Total fare
In-vehicle time
Transit
Access time
Wait time
Transfer time
Egress time
Appendices D to F provide detailed values and assumption used for the travel attributes in
the Stirling Study.
5.2.2
Car travel
The following attributes of car travel are specified for internal and external trips:

distance factor – applied to straight line distance between zones to allow for the density
of the road network

average speed – specified separately for internal travel and to and from each external
zone

car operating costs – average operating cost in $ per km

parking costs – destination parking cost, $ per trip

parking time – destination time for parking including car parking time and walking time.
The assumed vehicle operating cost is $0.50 per km based on the ATC Guidelines
(Volume 5, p. 42) with an adjustment to reflect 2010 prices.
Page 28
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
5.2.3
Public transport travel
Travel by public transport services (bus or rail) are modelled as a combination of access,
main mode and egress segments.
Walk access/egress to transit stops was modelled for all zones in the study area.
Travel attributes for public transport travel are estimated by the TODTrips model based on
specified public transport networks and services. Transit services running on the network are
specified separately for each scenario (see Section 3).
Public transport service attributes include service frequency and travel times between
stations and stops – the latter is based on either specified schedule times or network
speeds. Public transport travel between the study area and external zones is modelled by
way of specifying key regional bus and rail services.
The TODTrips model applies shortest path algorithms to select a set of shortest paths
between each origin and destination zone pair based on the specified network and services.
Walk access to different adjacent parts of the public transport network is modelled from the
centroid of each zone with parameters applied to allow for the degree of permeability in each
zone.
Once the shortest public transport paths between each zone pair are determined, the
following public transport travel attributes are estimated:

walk access and egress time

total service waiting times

total service in-vehicle times

transfer times

fare (see Appendix F).
5.2.4
Walking and cycling
Walking and cycling times for travel between each origin and destination zone pair are
estimated from applying specified distance factors and average speeds to the straight line
distances between zones. The distance factors are used to allow for different densities in the
walking and cycling network. Cycling average speeds can be varied to allow for the effect of
cycle facilities.
For the Existing Base Case (2001) scenario the following parameters were used:

average walk speed = 4.0 km/h

average cycle speed = 15 km/h.
Constraints were applied as penalty to the walk and cycle mode for longer walking and
cycling distances (see Appendix E).
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 29
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
5.3
Generalised costs of travel
5.3.1
Formulating generalised costs to represent different trip
segments between origin and destination
TODTrips model maps all key segments of trips between an origin and a destination in a
multi-modal transport network context. Figure 5.3 presents trip’s segments between origin
zone and destination zone. These trips are mapped into a complete mode choice structure
so that the cost of travel by different transport mode choices can be identified, formulate and
calculated. In TODTrips, generalised costs are converted to generalised time (labelled as
GT) in minute unit.

Car, walk and cycle modes provide a direct link between origin zone and destination
zone so there is no access and egress components. The generalised times of car, walk
and cycle modes are calculated by the following formulas:
GT by Car = GC weight main mode x Travel time by Car + GT vehicle operating cost by Car + GT other
cost by Car
GT by Walk = GC weight main mode x Travel time by Walk + GT penalty long distance by Walk
GT by Cycle = GC weight main mode x Travel time by Cycle + GT penalty long distance by Cycle
Where:
Travel time by Car = ((Distance x Car_RouteDirectnessFactor)/(Car_speed*1000) * 60) (in minutes)
Travel time by Walk = ((Distance x Walk_RouteDirectnessFactor)/(Walk_speed*1000) * 60) (in minutes)
Travel time by Cycle = ((Distance x Cycle_RouteDirectnessFactor)/(Cycle_speed*1000) * 60) (in minutes)
GTvehicle operating cost by Car = ((VehOpercarCost/1000 * distance)/car_VOT) * 60 (in minutes)
GT of other cost = (parking cost + toll cost)/car_VOT * 60 (in minutes)
Distance = straight line distance between origin and destination zone centroids (in metres)
Car_speed = average car speed (in kph)
Walk_speed = average walk speed (in kph)
Cycle_speed = average cycle speed (in kph)
Car_VOT=value of time of Car driver and passenger (in $/hour)
VehOpercarCost = car operating cost (in $/km)
Car_RouteDirectnessFactor, Walk_RouteDirectnessFactor and Cycle_RouteDirectnessFactor = factors
to convert straight line distance between origin and destination to network distance.
GC weight main mode = weight value applied to main mode.
The specific values of generalised time of car, walk and cycle modes for every origin
and destination are based on the distance values which are calculated by TODTrips
given the values of other parameters. Lists of parameter values adopted for the
generalised time calculation for Stirling study is in the Appendices C to F.

Transit involves three trip segments: access, main and egress. Transfer is also
considered to allow for transfer by walk across different stations/stops. Transfer
segment is particularly important in handling external trips where the transfers at
regional stations (such as Stirling and Glendalough stations) and regional bus stops
(service 98/99 and service 400) are required to connect to the local transit network.

Page 30
Local access and local egress within Stirling study area is by walk mode. External
access/egress to and from external zones (i.e. LGAs) is by regional rail and or
regional bus services.
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper


Main transit modes include rail, bus, and alternative modes introduced by each
specific scenario (2031 bus, street car, LRT, BRT and LRT single sided).
The generalised times of transit modes for internal trips (I-I movements) are calculated
by the following formulas:
GT by transit mode =
GC weight access mode x (Travel time by Walk + GT equivalent of transit fare
+ GC weight main mode x GT In vehicle travel time by transit
+ GC weight wait x waiting time
+ GC weight egress mode x GT egress cost by Walk
Where:
Travel time by Walk = ((Distance x Walk_RouteDirectnessFactor)/ (Walk_speed*1000) * 60) (in minutes)
GT equivalent of transit fare
= (Fare/Transit_VOT) * 60
(in minutes)
Transit_VOT=value of time of transit riders (in $/hour)
Walk_speed = average walk speed (in kph)
GT In vehicle travel time by a transit mode = (Distance/(speed of transit mode x 1000) )* 60 (in minutes)
Distance = straight line distance between origin and destination stations/stops (in metres)
Speed = speed of a specific transit service (in kph)
Average waiting time = average waiting time at transit stops (in minutes). Waiting time was assumed to
be equal to half of the average headway of a particular transit service in every scenario.
GC weight access mode, main mode and egress, = weight values applied to access, main and egress
modes, respectively.
The specific values of generalised time of transit modes for every origin and destination
are based on the distance values which are calculated by TODTrips given the values of
other parameters. Lists of parameter values adopted for the generalised time calculation
for Stirling study is in Appendices C to F.

The generalised times of transit modes for external trips, particularly I-E movements,
are calculated by the following formulas:
GT by transit mode = GC weight access mode x (Travel time by Walk + GT equivalent of transit fare
+ GC weight main mode x GT In vehicle travel time by transit
+ GC weight wait x waiting time
+ GC weight transfer x Transfer time by walk
+ GC weight egress mode x GT external egress cost by Regional Rail and
Regional Bus
Where:
Travel time by Walk = ((Distance x Walk_RouteDirectnessFactor)/ (Walk_speed*1000) * 60) (in minutes)
GT equivalent of transit fare
= (Fare/Transit_VOT) * 60
(in minutes)
Transit_VOT=value of time of transit riders (in $/hour)
Walk_speed = average walk speed (in kph)
GT In vehicle travel time by a transit mode = (Distance/(speed of transit mode x 1000) )* 60 (in minutes)
Distance = straight line distance between origin and destination stations/stops (in metres)
Speed = speed of a specific transit service (in kph)
Average waiting time = average waiting time at transit stops (in minutes). Waiting time was assumed to
be equal to half of the average headway of a particular transit service in every scenario.
Transfer time by Walk = ((Transfer distance x Walk_RouteDirectnessFactor)/(Walk_speed*1000) * 60) (in
minutes)
GT equivalent of transit fare
= (Fare/Transit_VOT) * 60
(in minutes)
GC weight access mode, main mode, transfer and egress, = weight values applied to access, main,
transfer and egress modes, respectively.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 31
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
The specific values of generalised time of transit modes for every origin and destination
are based on the distance values which are calculated by TODTrips given the values of
other parameters. Lists of parameter values adopted for the generalised time calculation
for Stirling study is in Appendices C to F.
Figure 5.3
5.3.2
Trip’s segments represented by TODTrips
Weighting trip segments used in calculating generalised
costs of travel
The travel attributes for travel by each alternative mode are combined into a single
generalised cost for that mode using weights. The different values for the weights allows for
different valuations of the components of travel (compared with in-vehicle travel time). For
example, a weight of 1.8 is applied to transfer time to allow for the fact that most people
value transfer time at a rate about 80 % higher than in-vehicle travel time.
The values of generalised cost weights can be derived from stated preference surveys
targeted at the particular markets of interest. In the absence of such survey data, values can
be specified based on established guidelines and interpretation for the local context.
For the Stirling model, the Australian Transport Council guidelines were used to specify
appropriate values for the weights for car and public transport travel – these are summarised
in Table 5.3 below. More details of mode choice parameters used are in Appendices C to F.
Page 32
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Table 5.2
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Generalised cost weights
Mode
Name
Value
Access
GC_weight_access
1.5
Main
GC_weight_main
1.0
Egress
GC_weight_egress
1.5
Transfer
GC_weight_transfer
3.0
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 33
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
6.
Assessment result of five transit modal
scenarios
The assessment of five scenarios described in Section 3 was implemented with two car use
scenarios: high and low car use for internal trips and high car use for external trips. Results
of TODTrips model runs output for all scenarios are presented and discussed in the
following sections.
6.1
Internal trips – mode share and ridership estimates
This section presents mode share and ridership estimates for all five scenarios to
accommodate approximately 92,000 daily person trips estimated for internal travel
movements (I-I). Tables 6.1 and 6.2 present the mode share results based on the high and
low car scenarios. Main findings are as follows:

Walk and cycle mode share is quite consistent and stable across different scenarios
with average of 26.8% and 27.9% share in low and high car scenarios, respectively.

Car, rail and bus had highest share in base scenario among all five scenarios.

With the introduction of alternative transit modes including Street car, LRT, BRT and
LRT single sided, mode choice pattern was redistributed where alternative modes gain
an average share of 20%.

These gains came from the drops in car share by around 7%, walk and cycle mode
share by around 2%, rail share by around 3.5% and bus share by 3 to 8%.
Table 6.1
Low car use – Mode share for internal trips
by
Car
by
Walk & Cycle
by
Rail
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
by
Bus
Base
47.3%
28.0%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.4%
Street Car
40.6%
26.4%
3.2%
24.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.2%
LRT
40.8%
26.5%
3.1%
0.0%
22.3%
0.0%
7.3%
Scenario
BRT
41.1%
26.6%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
20.5%
8.2%
LRT (single sided)
40.5%
26.4%
3.1%
0.0%
24.0%
0.0%
5.9%
Table 6.2
High car use scenario – Mode share of internal trips
by
Car
by
Walk & Cycle
by
Rail
Base
54.9%
29.6%
Street car
45.3%
27.4%
LRT
45.6%
BRT
LRT (single sided)
Scenario
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
by
Bus
6.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.9%
2.8%
20.4%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%
27.5%
2.7%
0.0%
18.6%
0.0%
5.7%
46.2%
27.7%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
6.4%
45.3%
27.5%
2.7%
0.0%
19.9%
0.0%
4.7%
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 35
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Tables 6.3 and 6.4 provide a summary of ridership share of 92,000 daily person trips among
different transport modes for low and high car use. Main findings are as follows:

Apart from highest ridership values in car, rail and bus, alternative transport modes
results in base scenario, alternative transport modes (street car, LRT, BRT and LRT
single sided) ridership values to accommodate 92,000 internal person trips are around
20,000 person trips per day in low car use and around 18,000 person trips per day in
high car use scenarios.
Table 6.3
Low car use scenario – ridership share among different transport
modes for internal trips
by
Car
Scenario
by
Rail
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
by
Bus
Base
43575
25756
7626
0
0
0
15095
Street car
37331
24342
2965
22588
0
0
4826
LRT
37543
24399
2847
0
20563
0
6699
BRT
37816
24457
3300
0
0
18891
7588
LRT (single sided)
37327
24345
2874
0
22101
0
5406
Table 6.4
High car use scenario – ridership share among different transport
modes for internal trips
by
Car
by
Walk & Cycle
by
Rail
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
by
Bus
Base
50575
27233
6096
0
0
0
8148
Street car
41667
25260
2546
18744
0
0
3835
LRT
41976
25343
2442
0
17080
0
5212
BRT
42493
25453
2807
0
0
15408
5892
LRT (single sided)
41695
25271
2454
0
18277
0
4355
Scenario
6.2
by
Walk & Cycle
External trips – mode share and ridership estimates
This section presents mode share and ridership estimates for all five scenarios to
accommodate some 210,000 daily person trips estimated for external travel movements (IE and E-I movements). Tables 6.5 present the result for the distribution of regional access
and egress by external trips into and out of the study area. Main findings are as follows:
Page 36

Among a total of 210,000 trips (two way travel), mode share by car was estimated at
65% with 135,000 daily person trips and mode share by regional transit services share
the remaining 35% with regional rail share value of 22% and regional bus share value of
13%.

The introduction of alternative transit modes including Street Car, LRT, BRT and LRT
single sided did make some impact (even not significant) on car mode share. The drop
in car share by around 3% is noted. This could be due to the fact that the alternative
transit modes connect regional transit services and final destination within study area.
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Table 6.5
Distribution of regional access and egress by external trips into and
out of study area (I-E and E-I movements)
Daily
trips by
Car
Scenario
Daily
trips by
regional
rail
Daily
trips by
regional
bus
Total
daily
trips
pc by
car
pc by
regional
rail
pc by
regional
bus
Base
135900
46231
26979
209110
65.0%
22.1%
12.9%
Street car
131015
48611
29483
209110
62.7%
23.2%
14.1%
LRT
129549
47731
31831
209110
62.0%
22.8%
15.2%
BRT
130134
47312
31664
209110
62.2%
22.6%
15.1%
LRT (single sided)
129623
47630
31856
209110
62.0%
22.8%
15.2%
Among the 210,000 daily person trips estimated for external travel movements (I-E and E-I
movements), an average of 130,000 car trips had direct access between external and
internal zones. While 130,000 daily person trips of car mode to and from external zones will
become internal travel component within the study area, the 80,000 (=210,000-130000) daily
person trips by regional rail and or regional bus will be connected to the local transit network
within the study area. Tables 6.6 and 6.7 present the result for the modal split and ridership
share by local transit modes from these approximate 80,000 daily person trips in connecting
to the local transit services. Main findings are as follows:

In Base scenario, rail and bus mode shares are 27.9% and 7.1%, respectively.

In other alternative mode scenarios including street car, LRT, BRT and LRT single
sided, rail and bus modes drop their share values down to 15.3% and 5.7%,
respectively. Alternative transport mode shares gains from significant drop in rail share
(12.6% reduction), car share (3% reduction) and bus share (1.4% reduction) with
16.3% mode share for street car and LRT and 12.7% mode share for BRT.

Ridership estimates for alternative transport modes ranges from average of 26,000 daily
person trips (BRT) to 34,000 daily person trips (street car, LRT and LRT single sided).
Table 6.6
Modal split of external trips using local transit services
by
Car
by
Walk & Cycle
by
Rail
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
Base
50575
27233
6096
0
0
0
Street car
41667
25260
2546
18744
0
0
LRT
41976
25343
2442
0
17080
0
BRT
42493
25453
2807
0
0
15408
LRT (single sided)
41695
25271
2454
0
18277
0
Scenario
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 37
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Table 6.7
Ridership estimates of external trips (I-E and E-I movements) using
local transit services
by
Car
by
Rail
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
by
Bus
Base
135900
58280
0
0
0
14931
Street car
131015
31901
34183
0
0
12011
LRT
129549
34097
0
32470
0
12995
BRT
130134
37668
0
0
26635
14674
LRT (single sided)
129623
33081
0
34176
0
12230
Scenario
6.3
Combined internal and external trips - mode share and
ridership estimates
This section presents mode share and ridership estimates for all five scenarios to
accommodate a total of around 300,000 daily person trips estimated for all travel movements
(including internal and external trips). Tables 6.8 and 6.9 present the mode share results
based on the high and low car scenarios. Main findings are as follows:

All for alternative transport modes including street car, LRT, BRT and LRT single sided
have gained a high mode share values (from 14% with BRT to 19% with Street Car) in
comparing to the bus option used in the Base scenario.

The 5% difference between BRT and street car and LRT is mainly due to the frequency
of service of BRT is 15 minutes versus 5 minutes.

Street car mode gains highest mode share is mainly due to its service coverage with
19 stops in comparing to 13 stops in LRT scenario.

In terms of ridership estimates, all alternative modes scenarios are comparable and
their values are in the range of 45,000 to 55,000 person trips per day.
Table 6.8
Low car use – Mode share for combined internal and external trips
by
Car
by
Walk & Cycle
by Rail
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
by
Bus
Base
59.6%
8.6%
21.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
Street car
55.9%
8.1%
11.6%
18.9%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
LRT
55.5%
8.1%
12.3%
0.0%
17.6%
0.0%
6.5%
Scenario
Page 38
BRT
55.8%
8.1%
13.6%
0.0%
0.0%
15.1%
7.4%
LRT (single sided)
55.4%
8.1%
11.9%
0.0%
18.7%
0.0%
5.9%
2106689A-PR_2812
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
Table 6.9
High car use – Mode share for combined internal and external trips
by
Car
by
Walk & Cycle
by
Rail
Base
61.9%
9.0%
21.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.7%
Street car
57.3%
8.4%
11.4%
17.6%
0.0%
0.0%
5.3%
LRT
57.0%
8.4%
12.1%
0.0%
16.5%
0.0%
6.0%
BRT
57.3%
8.5%
13.4%
0.0%
0.0%
14.0%
6.8%
LRT (single sided)
56.9%
8.4%
11.8%
0.0%
17.4%
0.0%
5.5%
Scenario
Table 6.10
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
by
Bus
Low car use – ridership estimates for combined internal and external
trips
by
Car
by
Walk & Cycle
by
Rail
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
by
Bus
Total
Base
179474
25756
65905
0
0
0
30026
301162
Street car
168346
24342
34866
56771
0
0
16836
301162
LRT
167092
24399
36944
0
53033
0
19694
301162
BRT
167949
24457
40968
0
0
45526
22261
301162
LRT (single sided)
166950
24345
35955
0
56277
0
17635
301162
Scenario
Table 6.11
High car use – ridership estimates for combined internal and external
trips
by
Car
by
Walk & Cycle
by
Rail
by
Street Car
by
LRT
by
BRT
by
Bus
Total
Base
186474
27233
64375
0
0
0
23079
301162
Street car
172682
25260
34447
52927
0
0
15845
301162
LRT
171524
25343
36539
0
49550
0
18206
301162
BRT
172627
25453
40475
0
0
42043
20565
301162
LRT (single sided)
171317
25271
35536
0
52453
0
16585
301162
Scenario
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 39
Stirling City Centre - Light Rail Feasibility Study - Phase 2
TOD Trips Model Working Paper
7.
Conclusions
The modelling results indicate that there is strong potential for the operation of an effective
internal transit system in the Stirling Centre. The following conclusions and observations are
made in relation to the results of the modelling:

There is a potentially strong market for a high quality transit system to provide for travel
within the study area and to facilitate the use of public transport for access to the area
from other parts of the metropolitan area.

The modelling results show that demand could be in the range of around 40,000 to
55,000 passengers per day. This result is considered to be relatively high and has been
driven by the land use assumptions and the overall high level of development included
in the model. These figures should be reviewed as part of a practical assessment of the
development potential in the study area.

The transit system has a strong role to play in minimising the use of private motor
vehicles for movement within the centre and minimising the demand for parking.

With regards the modes tested, the Streetcar shows that it has the potential to attract
marginally more passengers than the other options. This mode is the most accessible,
with the highest number of stops which underlines the importance of selecting a mode
which can be closely integrated with development along the corridor.

The design of the transit system, the final decision regarding the streets in which it will
operate and the delivery of developments which support active street frontages will
have a strong bearing on the ultimate success of the transit system.

Close integration is required at Stirling and Glendalough Railway Stations to ensure
barrier free seamless interchange conditions for passengers to maximise the
attractiveness of the transit system for people travelling from outside the study area.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
2106689A-PR_2812
Page 41
Appendix A
TODTrips Trip Generation Model
Land Use and Trip Rates (Source:
SMC 2010 and RTA 2002)
Table A-1: Land use and Trip Rates used for Stirling Study
Category
Population
Retail small
Retail medium
Retail large
Retail
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Education
Industrial
Office
Commercial
Retail
Education
Houses
Townhouses
Apartments
Houses
Townhouses
Apartments
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Office
Retail
Commercial
Industrial
Office
Variables
AvgWeekDayTripRateperPerson
AvgWeekDayTripRateper100smGFA
AvgWeekDayTripRateper100smGFA
AvgWeekDayTripRateper100smGFA
AvgWeekDayTripRateper100smGFA
AvgWeekDayTripRateper100smGFA
AvgWeekDayTripRateper100smGFA
AvgWeekDayTripRateper100smGFA
AvgWeekDayTripRateper100smGFA
AvgNumberWorkerper100smGFA
AvgNumberWorkerper100smGFA
AvgNumberWorkerper100smGFA
AvgNumberWorkerper100smGFA
AvgNumberWorkerper100smGFA
Density_in_dwg per ha
Density_in_dwg per ha
Density_in_dwg per ha
Average HHsize
Average HHsize
Average HHsize
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
AverageGFA perworker
AverageGFA perworker
AverageGFA perworker
AverageGFA perworker
Values
3.75
132
86
55
20
9
9
1
9
0.9
3.9
3.9
2.2
3.9
12
20
40
3
2.5
1.5
1
3
0.4
3
30
15
100
15
Appendix B
TODTrips Trip Distribution Model
and Parameters
Estimating trip distribution using gravity model for internal trip movements (I-I)
The gravity model, formulated as in the following equation, was used to estimate the pattern of travel
within Stirling study area.
Tij = ki kj Ti Tj / f(tij)
A-1
Where

Tij is the estimate of the amount of trips between zone i and zone j;

Ti and Tj are trip production from zone i and trip attraction to zone j;

k is a proportionality factor; and

f(tij) is a generalised function of the travel cost between zone i and zone j and it often receives the
name of ‘friction function’ or ‘deterrence function’ because it represents the disincentive to travel as
alpha
travel cost increases. For Stirling case study, f(tij) = tij
where alpha=1.2 and tij = distance in
kilometres between centroids of origin zone i and destination zone j.

ki and kj are calibration parameters and defined as follows:
-1
A-2
-1
A-3
ki = {ΣkjTj / f(Tij)}
kj = {ΣkiTi / f(Tij)}
An iterative process described below is necessary: given a set of values for the friction function, start with
all kj = 1, solve for ki and then use these values to re-estimate the kj’s; repeat the estimated matrix satisfy
the trip ends constraints.

set all kj = 1.0 and solve for ki; in this context. ‘solve for ki’ means find the correction factors ki that
satisfy the trip generation constraints (given from the output of trip generation module);

with the latest ki solve for kj, e.g. satisfy the trip attraction constraints (given from the output of trip
generation module);

keeping the kj ’s fixed, solve for ki and repeat steps (2) and (3) until the changes are sufficiently
small.
Output:
A full OD matrix of NxN, where N is total number of zones, would be produced. The numerical value in
each matrix cell ODij represents the amount of person trips between origin zone i and destination zone j.
Appendix C
TODTrips Mode Choice Parameters
Table C-1: Weight values used in Mode Choice Models for Stirling Study
Mode
Access
Main
Name
GC_weight_access
GC_weight_main
Value
1.5
1.0
Egress
GC_weight_egress
1.5
Transfer
GC_weight_transfer
3.0
Table C-2: Other weight values used in Mode Choice Models for Stirling Study
Model
Parameters
Name
Value
Internal
trip mode
choice
Exponential function sensitive
parameter for generalised cost
of internal trips
GC_SensParameter_Int
0.065
Internal
trip mode
choice
Scale value applied to logsum
of transit choices in low car use
scenario
GC_ScaleIntAccessUtilityforLowCarUse
1.50
Internal
trip mode
choice
Scale value applied to logsum
of transit choices in high car
use scenario
GC_ScaleIntAccessUtilityforHighCarUse
3.00
External
trip mode
choice
External
trip mode
choice
External
trip mode
choice
External
trip mode
choice
model
Exponential function sensitive
parameter for generalised cost
of external trips
GC_SensParameter_Ext
0.008
Scale values applied to car
choice utility
GC_ScaleExtAccessUtility_forCar
2.00
Scale values applied to regional
rail's utility
GC_ScaleExtAccessUtility_forRegionalRail
1.00
Scale value applied regional
bus's utility
GC_ScaleExtAccessUtility_forRegionalBus
1.00
Appendix D
Speed values used for different
transport modes in TODTrips
Table D-1: Speed values used for different transport modes in Stirling Study
Transport modes
Car (local)
Car (regional)
Walk
Cycle
Rail
Bus - Service 98/99
Bus - Service 413
Bus - Service 400
Bus - Service 400
Bus - Service 400
Bus - Service 400
Bus - Service 400
2031 Bus
Street car
LRT
BRT
LRT (Single sided)
Scenario
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Base
S2
S3A
S3B
S4
Base
S2
S3A
S3B
S4
Average
Speed (kph)
35.0
55.0
4.0
10.0
58.5
24.2
19.5
24.2
15.0
20.0
20.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
20.0
20.0
17.5
Appendix E
Other model parameters used in
TODTrips
Table E-1: Other model parameters
Mode
Car
Car
Car
Transit
Car
Walk
Cycle
Variables
Car operating cost per km
Fix car cost (parking, toll)
Value of time for car driver & passenger
Value of time for public transport user
Route directness factor for car trip
Route directness factor for walk trip
Route directness factor for cycle trip
Values
$0.50
$0.00
$6.80
$6.80
1.2
1.2
1.4
Walk
Travel time penalty for Walk from 500 - 1000 metres
8 minutes
Walk
Travel time penalty for Walk from 1000 - 1500 metres
16 minutes
Walk
Travel time penalty for Walk > 1500 metres
24 minutes
Cycle
Travel time penalty for Cycle from 1000 - 2000 metres
8 minutes
Cycle
Travel time penalty for Cycle from 2000 - 3000 metres
16 minutes
Cycle
Cycle
Travel time penalty for Cycle from 3000 - 4000 metres
Travel time penalty for Cycle > 4000 metres
24 minutes
30 minutes
Appendix F
Public Transport fare rates
Table F-1: TransPerth public transport fare rate
Number of TransPerth
Zones
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fare ($)
2.5
3.7
4.6
5.4
6.6
7.6
8.7
9.5
10.2
(Source: TransPerth 01 July 2010, www.transperth.wa.gov.au)
Table F-2: Public transport fare coding for TODTrips
Origin
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
within study area
Destination
within study area
NEDLANDS
CLAREMONT
WANNEROO
MUNDARING
SWAN
KALAMUNDA
SERPENTINE-JARRAHDALE
ARMADALE
ROCKINGHAM
KWINANA
COCKBURN
MELVILLE
FREMANTLE
EAST FREMANTLE
CANNING
SOUTH PERTH
VICTORIA PARK
BELMONT
VINCENT
BAYSWATER
PERTH
KINGS PARK
SUBIACO
STIRLING REMAINDER EAST
CAMBRIDGE
MOSMAN PARK
PEPPERMINT GROVE
COTTESLOE
JOONDALUP
GOSNELLS
BASSENDEAN
STIRLING REMAINDER WEST
MANDURAH
MURRAY
Fare ($)
2.5
2.5
2.5
6.6
5.4
4.6
4.6
6.6
5.4
6.6
5.4
4.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.7
3.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.6
4.6
3.7
2.5
8.7
8.7