Light rail transit systems (LRTs) are attractive options for modern communities as they offer high quality, sustainable public transportation services. However, investment costs often may make their application for medium-sized cities prohibitive, particularly if no significant social benefits are achieved. Guided light transit (GLT) has been introduced in the recent years, as a lower cost alternative to LRT, with the additional advantage of being suitable for urban environments with space limitations. In this study, a systematic comparison of LRT and GLT is offered, in the context of a mid-size city in Greece. Results indicate that high investment costs, coupled with low ridership can have a negative impact to the introduction of LRT in a medium-sized city. However, under certain conditions, GLT may be a viable alternative, while its nature and characteristics are not that different to those of LRT.
Aronis-Drettas-Karlaftis Consulting Engineers S.A. (2011). Feasibility study for the implementation of a fixed route mode in Ioannina, Greece. Final report submitted to the Epirus Branch of the EU Managing Funds Authority. (in Greek)
2.
AllenD. (2014, January12-16). Economies of scale in operating costs for LRT and streetcars. Compendium of Papers of the 93rd Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
ArringtonG. B. (2003). Light rail and the American City: State-of-the-practice for transit-oriented development (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C058). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
6.
BaumH.GeißlerT.SchneiderJ.BühneJ.-A. (2008). External costs in the transport sector—A critical review of the EC internalization policy. Cologne, Germany: Institute for Transport Economics at the University of Cologne.
7.
BaumgartenB.BernardM.RobinP.RotarescuL. (2014, May5-7). Reducing cost of a tram system for smaller urban areas. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Railway Engineering (CORE 2014), Adelaide, Australia.
8.
BjörklundS.ChristofferS.RosenqvistK.YdstedtA. (2000). New concepts for trolley buses in Sweden. Stockholm, Sweden: KFB (The Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board).
9.
ChenX.YuL.SongG.XianC. (2012). Comparative study of emissions from bus rapid transit and conventional bus systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2277, 11-20.
10.
CurrieG.BurkeM.DelboscA. (2014). Performance of Australian light rail and comparison with U.S. trends. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2419, 11-22.
11.
DunantM.CurrieG. (2013). Enhancing neighborhoods through streetcar development in Paris, France (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C177). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
12.
European Commission. (2006). Guidance on the methodology for carrying out cost-benefit analysis (Working Document 4). Brussels, Belgium: Author.
13.
European Commission. (2008). Guide to cost benefit analysis of investment projects. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
14.
EwingR.HamidiS.GoatesJ. P.NelsonA. C. (2014, January12-16). Direct and indirect impacts of light rail transit on VMT in Portland, OR: A longitudinal analysis. Compendium of Papers of the 93rd Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
15.
FarrqnJ. I. (2008, January13-17). Evolution of light rail transit in the United States: A 25-year perspective. Annual Compendium of Papers of the 87th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC.
16.
GodardX. (2007). Some lessons for the LRT in Tunis and the transferability of experience. Transportation Research A, 41, 891-898.
17.
HenryL. (2004, June). Rapid streetcar: Rescaling design and cost for more affordable light rail transit. Proceedings of the Rail Transit Conference, Miami, FL.
18.
HigginsC. D.FergusonM.KanaroglouP. (2013, January13-17). Rethinking light rail transit planning in Hamilton, Ontario: A comparative review and critical assessment. Compendium of Papers of the 92th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
19.
HubbellJ.ColquhounD. (2007). Light rail transit in Calgary: The first 25 years (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C112). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
20.
ItoT. (2004, July4-8). Basic conditions to introduce light rail transit—Comparison of European and Japanese cities. Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Transport Research, Istanbul, Turkey.
21.
JonesA. (2013). Applying a European Urban-Style Light Rail Transit design approach in North America: Recent experience and lessons learned in Canada (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C177). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
22.
KarttunenJ.HilmolaO.-P.SaranenJ. (2010). Evaluating Light Rail as a short distance passenger transportation solution in a midsized town. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 3, 121-136.
23.
KepaptsoglouK.KarlaftisM. G.GkotsisI.VlahogianniE.StathopoulosA. (2015). Urban regeneration in historic downtown areas: An ex-ante evaluation of traffic impacts in Athens, Greece. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9, 478-489.
24.
LahonD. (2012, August12-15). Evaluation of light rail transit (LRT) in Downtown Houston. Proceedings of the ITE 2012 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Atlanta, GA.
25.
LaveryT. A.KanaroglouP. (2012). Rediscovering light rail: Assessing the potential impacts of a light rail transit line on transit oriented development and transit ridership. Transportation Letters, 4, 211-226.
National Trolleybus Association. (2000, March-April). Is it a bus? Is it a tram?Trolleybus Magazine, No. 230, p. 26.
28.
NielsenO. A. (1998). Two new methods for estimating trip matrices from traffic counts. In OrtuzarJ. D.HensherD.Jara-DiazS. (Eds.), Travel behaviour research: Updating the state of play (pp. 221-250). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
29.
PoindexterG.O’ConnellJ. (2007). How much do we really know? An evaluation of past and current research regarding the costs and benefit of the Hiawatha light rail line (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C112). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
30.
PuchalskyC. (2005). Comparison of emissions from light rail transit and bus rapid transit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1927, 31-37.
31.
PyrgidisC.StathopoulosA. (2004). The new light rail transit system of Athens, Greece. Railway International, 33, 6-10.
32.
SchererM. (2010). Is light rail more attractive to users than bus transit? Arguments based on cognition and rational choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2144, 11-19.
33.
ShalabyA. S.LingK.SinikasJ. (2007). Evaluation of multiple unit streetcar operation in Toronto, Canada (Transportation Research E-Circular E-C112). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
StutsmanJ. (2002). Bus rapid transit or light rail transit—How to decide? Los Angeles case study. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1793, 55-61.
36.
SuyutiR. (1997). Introducing a new public transport mode for middle cities in Indonesia. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 2, 1399-1407.
37.
ThompsonG. L.BrownJ. R. (2012). Making a successful LRT-based regional transit system: Lessons from five new start cities. Journal of Public Transportation, 15, 157-180.
38.
VuchicV. R. (2003). Urban transit: Operations, planning and economics. New York, NY: John Wiley.
39.
WalterS.FellendorfM. (2015, January11-15). Robust methodological approach for a long-term upgrade strategy for light rail and regional rail. Compendium of Papers of the 94th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
