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.

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?

Proposal for Riga: Intra-city Train Line Central Station – Ziemeļblāzma

It is now 20 years since Riga metropolitan project was stopped due to several problems. As the first big infrastructure project – the Southern Bridge – will be finished in few years the next project – the Northern Bridge – has came in spotlight of political discussions. Manville not a single transportation building for public transport is built and visions reach no further than a 800 m tram tunnel under Gaisa bridge. Yes – the vehicles goes under massive replacement program but no improvement in speed is made so far.

The City Development program states at least three possible fast transport systems: light rail (on tram basis), city trains (to split regional service from intra-city service) and train-tram or tram-train service (trains and trams may have common rail sections).  How to use these concepts?
Current ambitious port development leaves little hope that existing rail tracks could be used for frequent intra-city service so alternative solution must be found. Here is my concept of gradually increasing speed standards in Vecmīlgrāvis direction. This direction was chosen because Vecmīlgrāvis is a densely populated neighborhood far (9.3km) from the Centre. Now it is served by bus route with suffers from frequent delays.
Tram and railway tracks in Riga have almost the same gauge – 1520mm (trains) 1524mm (trams) - so the rolling stock is interchangeable. Meanwhile heavy rail have higher safety standards so no ordinary streetcars are allowed on train rails. Trams in Riga use 600V DC, but suburban trains 3kV DC – whith according to some unofficial information could be altered to 25 kV AC. 

Stage 1 – Expanding the Existing Tram Line No 5
This stage consists of building new heavy rail line (long and high platforms, high centenary voltage and advanced signaling) from Aldaris to Ziemeļblāzma. A 1.9 km tunnel must be built in Vecmīlgrāvis, an additional bridge over Mīlgrāvis and a new pair of tracks in section Mīlgrāvis – Aldaris. Four new stations are proposed – Aldaris, Jaunmīlgrāvis, Vecmīlgrāvis and Ziemeļblāzma. In station Aldaris trains switch to the existing tram line in direction to the centre. Dual power train sets must be used (but not too long to fit in city streets). Station Ziemeļblāzma could become terminal for busses to other neighborhoods (Mangaļi, Vecāķi, Jaunciems, Kalngale). Further North two city train branches are possible – to Vecāķi and Kalngale (where city trains could shared tracks with suburban trains) and to Mangaļi. Ziemeļblāzma city rail line would cut 3 min on evening trip (scheduled) from Central station to Ziemeļblāzma and make public transport much more reliable.

Stage 2 – Tunneling the City
The slowest part in Ziemeļblāzma route is Pētersala – Central station section as it goes through the densely built centre. Two tunneling options are provided – the red one is the straightest, the orange one goes under city districts with poor public transport accessibility. Booth lines would be useful but passengers to Ziemeļblāzma most probably prefer the straightest route (the red one). 3.15 km underground tunnel from Pētersala to Central market (Tirgus) include six stations with connection to street level and rail transport. At station Tirgus trains could continue ride on tram rails to Ķengarags. This tunnel would cut travel times from Central station to Ziemeļblāzma by 10 min.

Stage 3 – Connecting the Two HQ Sections
The missing section from Aldaris to Petersala could be build along existing railways. Station Sarkandaugava is proposed on a new bridge over Tilta street; station Dunte on a new flyover from Vecaķi railway to Krasta freight station. This section altogether will cut travel times to Ziemeļblāzma by 6 min.

The Goal - Reliable and Fast Service
If all stages are realized total travel times in Central station - Ziemļblāzma route will drop from current 39 min by evening bus to 20 min by modern train service with multimodal stations and excellent reliability. If all Tirgus – Ziemeļblāzma section is upgraded to heavy rail standard longer trainsets with single voltage power unit can be used.  
The new line will reduce need for suburban train stops within the city so no more then one stop in Saulkrasti direction must be sustained (most probably Sarkandaugava or Vecāķi will stay).

Proposal: a High-rise District in Liepāja

Liepāja is a town in the West of Latvia famous with the wonderful beach, cultural heritage and charming historical low-rise architecture. The population is 85.000 and keeps dropping. So far policy-makers have worked to fit all development projects in the existing environment and hadn’t done anything to encourage modern high-rise development. Liepāja doesn’t have an impressing historical skyline but have a chance to get modern one. I propose a way to convert existing port and waste territories south of city channel (see map) to a modern skyscraper cluster. This area is on edge of the historical old town, next to the beach and seaside park.

The Key - New Rail Terminus

Current railway station in Liepāja is located 1.8 km from central (Rožu) square - booth are connected by the only tram line in the town. Due to train shortage existing intercity train service is ridiculous - just one daily train to Riga. If more trains are put on service – especially tilting ones – rail connection to Riga and Jelgava will easily beat the coach service. As Liepāja is a seaside resort – seasonal rail services may be established from all biggest Baltic cities.

A new railway link and terminus are essential to create a motive for high-density land use in the area. I propose building an underground station in the site of the old stadium and to connect it to existing railway through tunnel under the city channel. A new tram line to the center must be built to provide accessibility for the rest of city. It is worth adding tram lines to Ezerkrasts, Karosta, and a higher standard line through airport to Grobiņa.

Change Through Adding

Lot A is the very first to be developed because the railway terminal construction underground. All historical fortifications and pounds must be preserved but the rest can be built-up with no height or density restrictions (as higher as better). In lots A and B all buildings (and functions) must be preserved as long as possible. New high-rise buildings must be built in gaps between existing ones. Different functions must be left together - retail, residential, hotels, offices, fish warehouses and docks – to makes the urban life more attractive. Lot C must be developed later than lot B to make the more important development of lot B faster.

Benefits for Almost all Districts

Seaside parks and the channel waterfront would strongly benefit from the proposed development because of the increased number of visitors. The influence to historical center is unclear – it may loose some services but the improved accessibility probably will outweigh losses. The current train station area will face problems only if buss station is moved together with train station to the new district. All the other areas of the town and region would see strong benefit from tourism and other business. Building a new tunelled rail link and station may seem too ambitious for Liepāja, but I believe it will induce even more rail trafic and bring the city to a new level of development.