Bicycle Rapid Transit for Riga

Most of modern cities currently try to sustain and upgrade booth mass transit systems and cycling infrastructure to attract people to sustainable modes of transport. On the other hand bicycling and public transport are actually competitors in several areas:

1. Users. The latest priority in several cities - cycling usually fight for passengers from public transport as being cheaper and often faster than the conventional busses and trams. Cycling infrastructure is usually aimed to reduce car trips but it may turn out to reduce mass transit trips.

2. Street space. Many cities have narrow streets so putting booth dedicated public transport and cycling lanes may be impossible.

3. Public funds. Public transport and cycling need funds for expansion and operation so sustaining booth modes puts bigger pressure on the city budget.

In Riga all these three arguments are often used to advocate focusing on conventional public transport and not support extensive upgrades in bike infrastructure. And the forth and biggest argument in favor of public transport is the seasonality of bicycling – there is no real way how to make people cycle in -10 degrees Celsius, during snowfalls or rainy days – so the year-round public transport must be supported. Really? Here is my question – why to prefer exactly weather-protected public transport instead of weather-protected cycling infrastructure? And it turns out that the cycling can be put ahead of mass transit even in cities with bad weather.

My idea is that cities can build dedicated cycling highways (see proposal for Toronto) with complete grade separation, high operating speed (>20km/h) between the districts. The system may be considered similar to existing undergrounds – a user arrives to the nearest station, pays for ride and heads to a station closest to his destination. Yet – unlike in a metro – user brings (or rents) his own vehicle, don’t wait for train in first and transfer stations and even don’t stop at unnecessary stations on his way and route himself to the exit station (similar of using a highway network). Altogether the result would be similar to the concept of Personal Rapid Transit system - with the difference of being slower on operation, requirement of user to drive and own (or rent) the vehicle yet with a big advantage of using the same vehicle for origin-to-station and station-to-destination movements.

An adequate riding climate is crucial for Bicycle Rapid transit – the users must be protected from precipitation, extreme temperatures, ice on pavement and direct sunlight, also good lighting is a must. As in practice the bikeways would be located in some type of tunnels – provision of artificial tailwinds may also be considered. Similar to using the conventional public transport – users are exposed to all types of weather while arriving/departing from station (in case of ground transportation passengers are often even forced to wait in bad weather), the controlled climate is provided only when entering the station or car.

New infrastructure required

The biggest challenge in this concept is provision of necessary infrastructure – the bikeways must be wide (>3.5m) each direction to provide high capacity. Maximum capacity for so wide bike path is not clearly known (though some sources state about 4500 bikes per hour per direction – a specific research must be done). The path must be fully separated and isolated from other modes to keep the flow non-stop, sustain the climate, restrict cyclists from entering the system without paying and provide safety. This makes Bicycle Rapid transit more costly to implement than usual on-street bus lines or trams yet cheaper than grade separate rail or bus transit. On the other hand cycling highways – unlike track based systems - can be effectively phased using existing streets for unfinished sections. Even one few kilometers long stretch of good bike highway would attract cyclists from districts yet directly unconnected to the system.

Operation compared to mass transit system

Travel time – generally shorter on Bicycle Rapid Transit because of no stops, no waiting time, no transfers and use of bicycle on the way to/from station instead of walking;

Peak performance – unclear as the capacity of Bicycle Rapid Transit System is unknown but even 4500 cyclists per hour per direction is sufficient for most routes in small to medium cities – it is equivalent to a tram with 200 riders running every 2min 40 sec. It is clear that bikes can’t handle very big flows but that is actually needed rarely;

Off-peak performance – as less crowded cycling would be even faster while public transport slower because of longer headways. If cycling network is closed for maintenance during nights – it would still be possible to use one’s bike to return home;

Accessibility – similar to public transport Bicycle Rapid Transit would not be very appropriate for wheelchair users and mothers with strollers during peak hours but during low hours would offer a comfortable ride. Cycling is appropriate for most of disabled people as specific vehicles like hand-powered tricycles are available. For others a simple bus network with long intervals and small capacity still must be sustained (possibly private). Bikes may provide also considerable hand luggage capacity if bags, baskets and trailers are used.

Building costs – high for cycling highways and associated stations compared to on-street transport. Also more land required than on-street pubic transport;

Running costs – extremely low for cycling highways as almost no moving parts (maybe only turnstiles, bike escalators and ventilators compared to additional trains and buses in conventional systems). Extremely low labor costs – no drivers, no vehicle repair stuff, just highway maintenance and possibly - station stuff. Also energy consumption is low and costs predictable - no moving cars, only highway lighting and ventilation.  Low operation costs is the biggest advantage of this type of system meaning that it can be kept open almost always – even during nights. Cycling is also oil-independent and ecologically friendly and contributes to public health giving huge savings for economy.

Possibilities in Riga

Readers may be tired of different concepts for Riga but I am not doing only because that’s the city I know best but also because of an unique feature – total lack of investment in public transport infrastructure (I don’t mean vehicles in this case – they are very good in Riga). Riga doesn’t have tunnels or elevated ways exclusively for public transport and even bus lanes are rare. That is why this city turns to be a good soil for new ideas.

Some of the cycling highways can be located along railway lines making their construction relatively cheap but still many cycling highways must be build above and parallel to main streets – usually elevated if located outside the railway ring and tunneled below streets in the central part. Districts of Bolderāja and Daugavgrīva are near the sea and booth are detached from other districts by a 6km wide meadow making the cycling highway building costs unreasonable and cycling time long. These districts can be included in the cycling system anyway – using specially equipped bus line for user ferrying together with their bicycles. The cost of ferry bus may be or may not be included in the cost of the rest of system. Theoretically – if such buses turn to be popular they can also link distant points of the system if the travel time by bus is considerably shorter and demand is sufficient.

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.