Riga urban and suburban mass transit consolidation

Riga city public transport has always been - and in foreseeable future will be - a ground-transport based as no massive underground projects are on horizon. The system consists of 9 tram, 20 trolleybus and about 54 bus routes and involves about a thousand vehicles, but on the other hand it suffers of strict mode distinction, route overlapping, too frequent stops and lack of interchange opportunities; the stops lacks amenities and even basic service information. Inspired from success of Bus Rapit Transit systems (BRT) in several cities I revised the transit route system in Riga and came to a core route proposal:

Routes are numbered G1 to G11 with terminal stations A, B or C (say a trolleybus with code G4C on it is heading to Pļavnieki). The new routes are based on these existing ones:

G1 – trams 6 and 7;

G2 – trams 4 and 11;

G3 – bus 3 with modifications on the right bank;

G4 – trolleybus 22 and 25;

G5 – tram, part of route 5;

G6 – trolleybus 14;

G7 – bus 53;

G8 – trolleybus 3 and 19;

G9 – trolleybus 23;

G10 – buses 2, 11, 22 and 24;

G11 – a new bus route. 

The main idea is to create a metro-like network (in witch transfers are extensively used) from transit lines that already exist. This in most cases means leaving a single, strong transport line from center to each district (unlike the current two or three) and providing vast interchange opportunities at several stations. Vehicles on the remaining lines would run with very short intervals (even less than 60s in peak hours) so making the system very attractive. Exclusive transport lanes may be required but the system may also work on usual city streets together with other traffic. At least in initial stages the introduction of such a system would be focused on branding, stop spacing, stop improvements and creation of line hierarchy rather than increasing the driving speeds.

As only the main districts would be covered by this network, feeders and some local routes also must be created to provide public transport in  less populous neighborhoods.

Suburban trains to do what they are supposed to

Right now suburban trains and the few regional trains in the city make frequent stops at small, poorly equipped stations not providing transfer opportunities and focusing just on the surrounding market. In order to make the train market wider I propose calling just at few but high-quality interchange station that serve the whole city. Instead of terminating at Riga central station the trains must continue the journey to other stations in the city to serve even more passengers. Here is the route-scheme for the reorganized system:

The colored lines are frequent suburban services (20-40 min intervals), black ones - all regional services (40-120min intervals). Currently Zemitāni-Pētersala and Imanta-RIX sections are non-existent but both are highly possible to be built. Until these rail links are getting built trains could terminate at Zemitāni and Torņakalns instead.

This plan don’t requires an excessively large funds but concentrates on making hierarchy (starting from local feeder buses, than to core routes, up to suburban, regional, intercity trains, coaches and planes) but it requires lot of political will and understanding. If such a consolidation would go hand-in-hand with exclusive bus lanes on streets or even separate level roads for public transport, Riga would have fast, modern and rather cheap public transport network with fully sufficient capacity.

Bringing Life to Liepāja Airport

Liepāja airport saw a start of scheduled airBaltic flights in 2007 to Riga, later also to Hamburg and Copenhagen yet already in 2008 all of the routes were dropped. Also Russian Atlant-Soyuz Airlines offered short-lived service to Moscow Vnukovo between 2008 and 2009. This failure on sustaining flights is mainly due the superiority of Palanga airport located about 60km south of Liepāja. Palanga airport have better facilities and – even more important – better catchment area. Palanga itself is a seaside resort and the airport is easily accessible from Klaipeda city in south, Liepāja in north and a number of mid-sized towns in east. airBaltic actually switched Liepāja feeder route to Palanga in 2009 regardless of the existing SAS feeder route to Copenhagen, Norwegian service to Oslo and seasonal UTair link to Moscow. Is there any chance of attracting some services – at least a feeder route to BT hub in Riga? I think – yes. The main idea is to develop the airport as a true city airport with fast connections to all districts of the city and full integration in the transport grid.

The Key – a BRT line from Liepāja to Grobiņa

Grobiņa is the biggest suburban town near Liepāja just about 10km from the CBD. Currently a twice-hourly bus service is the main public transport link between Liepāja and Grobiņa and it runs on the highway by-passing Liepāja airport. My point is that building a 4km brand-new Bus Rapid Transit line and upgrading a number of other roads and streets would allow to substantially speed-up Liepāja-Grobiņa bus service. A secondary effect from this BRT would be notably improved connectivity of Liepāja airport as the station can be built right next to the passenger terminal. The completely new road section for the BRT must be built trough reedy wetlands on the northern side of Lake Liepāja so some environmental concerns may rise but, as this road is dedicated for buses, cyclists and pedestrians, the impacts can be hold under control. This routing also bypasses urban areas so the actual operating speed for vehicles will be higher.

Gateway for Cars and Bicycles

Usually airports are surrounded by Park&Fly car parks but they are not used (at least I haven’t came across) like Park&Ride sites. In the case of Liepāja a win-win situation can be created if those booth facilities are merged. P&R will be based on BRT and the increasing traffic will bringing even better connections to airport. For successful implementation of P&R system some push-back actions like big parking fees in CBD or congestion tax may be applied. The same parking lots can be used for P&R and P&F so more effective use and bigger turnarounds will lower the parking prices.

A cycle line can be built along the BRT line so connecting Grobiņa to Liepāja and also airport to Liepāja. Booth air and road visitors can be easily served by one bicycle rent in the airport and  - cycling used to reach the golden beaches and lively clubs.

The biggest advantage of the listed measures is that ground transport system will be fully independent from level of air traffic which is designed to be more re-active. I believe - if the scheme is realized – a stable air traffic will came back to serve Liepāja from city's closest and the most convenient airport.

Proposed Rumbula Residental Area: the Transportation Problems

The most recent european10 architect competition in Riga was dedicated to Rumbula district. The idea of transforming the abandoned military airfield and allotment gardens to modern residential neighborhoods has been included in development papers for years but nothing has been done yet. Despite the wonderful waterfront Rumbula is not attracting developers – let’s see what is wrong and what can be done with that.


Biggest Problem - Distance to the Center
Rumbula development site is about 10km from the Old Town (city hall) with is big distance in case of Riga. Residential areas like Bolderāja, Vecmilgrāvis and Jugla are located about the same distance from the center and only one – Daugavgrīva are located even further. All of named districts are considered to be inconvenient for commuting, the estate prices are lower and all of them (at least initially) were providing notable number of jobs (sea-port, manufacturing etc).

There are a number of possible development areas which are suitable for public and private residential development closer or at the same distance to the CBD so Rumbula have to withstand competition. As mentioned earlier the main advantage of the site is river Daugava. Also A6 highway to Daugavpils and other cities may be used as an advantage.

Main Strategy - Good Connectivity
Theory says that travel time is more important than the covered distance thus fast connections should be the focus in site preparation. Other strategy could be making self-sufficient community with small or no need to commute but arrival of labor-consuming and well paid business is less predictable than arrival of dwellers and can actually turn the district to a ghetto with low property prices.
The core of all transportation strategy I propose is fast public transportation branch from station Gaisma to the primary hub of district – station Jaunrubula and secondary hub – station Lidlauks. The link may be realized as city rail derived from suburban rail service or bus rapid transit line derived from trolley-bus line number 15 running along the existing rail. The line would link Rumbula to the CBD, airport, Akropole shopping and some secondary business districts – Skanste and Spilve.
The existing high standard tram line number 7 which ends at Dole can be prolonged to station Jaunrumbula trough station Zoom. It would also be possible to continue tram service to station Lidlauks if connectivity with rail/BRT system is provided.

As the riverfront will be the pedestrian area, connections between stations Jaunrumbula and Lidlauks and the riverside must be created. In case of station Jaunrumbula – a wide pedestrian street with retail on booth sides must become the mayor attraction of the neighborhoods. On the other side of river Daugava Nature Park Doles sala is located - ferry connection from Rumbula to recreation areas in Doles sala would bring extra attractiveness to Rumbula.
Already now car-based manufacturing, offices and retail is based along the highway so no need to change that. The district will see more commerce if the local streets and car access is brought up to date.

If all of this is realized Rumbula will became truly attractive place for living, working of recreation. To pay for the entire infrastructure needed the neighborhood must be urbanized very densely. The main question is still open: isn’t there cheaper development site somewhere in the city with better transport and are there so many costumers willing to pay for living/working near the river?