Debunking the transit technology debate
Cities across North America are growing at an astounding rate and struggling to keep up with the varying needs of their growing populations. City planners are therefore striving to reshape land uses, driving the need to further invest in and develop current public transportation systems to meet the growing and changing demand.
Politicians, the media, the general public and transportation planners all have something to say about what improvements are required. Politicians, in particular, often base their political platforms on transportation-related issues, promising to improve current transit systems or build new transit infrastructure in attempts to gain election. Widespread personal preconceptions about the various merits of transit technology available typically drive what suggestions are made for its improvement with comments such as "We have an LRT line, so we need to extend it" and "Other cities are building streetcar lines, we should too", commonplace.
It’s therefore unsurprising that transit studies and discussions often result in the 'Technology Debate'. By which we mean that consensus-building focuses on transit modes and technology, rather than what the customers need or the best way to provide them with the services they require.
To ‘debunk the technology debate’ we must look beyond the preconceived notions of what individual modes can deliver. Instead, it would be better to take a more cost-effective approach, whereby technology appropriately serves demand. In short, a demand-led approach.
An example of the technology debate is the rigid argument in favor of fixed guideway solutions (Streetcar, LRT, Metro) in comparison to other transit modes. It is commonly assumed that fixed guideway solutions can provide a higher-quality, longer-term solution that is more attractive to transit riders than bus or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) solutions. It is further assumed that transit users prefer fixed guideway transit as opposed to BRT development. Is this really the case? Is this what the customer really thinks and values?
In an effort to answer these questions, Steer Davies Gleave’s recent research in Nantes, France examined and assessed passengers’ perceptions of LRT and BRT systems. (See more on page 13). The study shed some light on the debate, and identified that both the LRT and BRT systems were well-received by their users, resulting in high levels of customer satisfaction. This passenger insight suggests that there is little reason to suppose and/or assume that BRT is innately inferior to LRT. Rather, their perceptions demonstrate that a well-designed and well-operated BRT system can be just as attractive as a well-designed and well-operated LRT system.
Ultimately, the Nantes study illustrates that transit studies must shift the debate away from selecting a preferred technology option and instead focus on meeting the passenger needs and demand through the provision of high quality passenger-focused solutions, regardless of the transit mode itself. As such, transit solutions should have a demand-led approach, rather than be based upon the preconceived assumption that a particular transit mode will deliver the best outcome. Studies should, in fact, use a structured approach to focus on answering the really critical questions pertaining to transit technology which are: What is the central problem? What is the most efficient solution? What additional wider economic benefits can be gained?
Consideration should also be given to how individual projects fit within the development and delivery of the complete transportation network. How do the individual studies and proposals fit within this network context? What is the priority of the individual projects? Could smaller scale interventions across the network create greater overall benefit than a single gold plated project? This approach has the benefit of highlighting where a more cost effective solution may be needed to result in the delivery of a solution on the ground.
To develop the best transit solution which addresses all of the above points, techniques such as multiple account evaluation, cost benefit analysis or a demand-led approach, may best assist cities attempting to identify and develop the best transit solutions for their communities.
