Light rail in North America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Light rail

The distinct circumstances under which light rail systems have been introduced to North America (particularly the United States) have caused differences in the development and implementation of those systems as well as spur political controversy over the effectiveness of light rail.

The term light rail was coined in 1972 by the U.S. Urban Mass Transit Association (UMTA) to describe new streetcar transformations which were taking place in Europe and the United States. The Germans used the term stadtbahn to describe the concept, and many in the UMTA wanted to adopt the direct translation, which is city rail. However, in its reports the UMTA finally adopted the term light rail instead. ^[1]

Contents 1 Origins of light rail in North America 2 Usage of light rail in North America 3 Diesel light rail 4 Light rail in the United States 4.1 General Motors streetcar conspiracy 4.2 Criticisms of light rail in the U.S. 4.2.1 Spatial mismatch 4.2.2 Travel time 4.2.3 Return on investment and cost-competitiveness for LRT vs. highway 5 Light rail in Canada 5.1 Calgary 5.2 Edmonton 5.3 Vancouver 5.4 Ottawa 6 See also 7 External links 8 Links to U.S. sites opposing light rail 9 References

[edit] Origins of light rail in North America

The renaissance of light rail in North American began in 1978 when Edmonton, Alberta adopted the German Siemens-Duewag U2 system, followed three years later by Calgary, Alberta and San Diego, California. These modern light-rail systems are more like subway or metro systems that operate at street level. They include modern, multi-car trains that can only be accessed at stations that are spaced anywhere from a couple blocks to a mile or more apart. Some of these systems operate within roadways alongside automobile traffic, and others operate on their own separate right-of-way.

[edit] Usage of light rail in North America

North American Light Rail Ridership

Number of	Average Weekday	Annual Total
Boardings	2Q 2006 (1,000s)	2005 (millions)
Toronto	322.4	88.6
Calgary	220.0	52.6
Boston	200.4	70.6
San Francisco	148.2	43.4
Los Angeles	137.7	39.7
Portland	104.3	32.1
San Diego	100.9	28.8
Philadelphia	68.6	18.8
Dallas	62.4	17.6
St. Louis	58.7	16.1
Houston	37.8	10.6
Denver	30.8
San Jose	30.5
Minneapolis	28.8	7.9
Pittsburgh	26.0	7.3
Buffalo	18.0	5.4

Sources: American Public Transportation Authority,

See also: List of United States light rail systems by ridership

[edit] Diesel light rail

A few recently-opened systems in North America use diesel-powered trains, including the River Line in New Jersey (opened in 2004), the O-Train in Ottawa (opened in 2001), and the upcoming SPRINTER in northern San Diego County, California (projected to be opened by late 2007). Diesel operations are chosen in corridors where lower ridership is expected (and thus do not justify the expense of the electric power infrastructure) or which have an "interurban" nature with stations spaced relatively far apart (electric power provides greater acceleration, making it essential for operations with closely-spaced stations). Operations with diesel-powered trains can be an interim measure until ridership growth and the availability of funding allow the system to be upgraded to electric power operations.

[edit] Light rail in the United States

United States use of light rail is low by European standards. According to the American Public Transportation Authority, of the 20-odd light rail systems in the United States only five (Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Portland, OR), achieve more than 25 million passenger boardings per year, and only Boston exceeds the 50+ million boardings per year of the London Docklands Light Rail system.

The Federal Transit Administration helps to fund many projects, but as of 2004, the rules to determine which projects will be funded are biased against the simpler streetcar systems (partly because the vehicles tend to be somewhat slower). Some cities in the U.S. (e.g. San Pedro, California) have set about building the less expensive streetcar lines themselves or with only minimal federal support. Most of these lines have been "vintage" or "heritage" railways, using refurbished or replica streetcars harkening back to the first half of the 20th century. However, a few, such as the Portland Streetcar, use modern vehicles. There is a growing desire to push the Federal Transit Administration to help fund these startup lines as well.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] General Motors streetcar conspiracy

One of the factors which may have contributed to the low rate of electric rail vehicle usage in the United States compared to other countries may be the existence of a conspiracy by a number of companies, led by General Motors, to buy up streetcar lines and replace the streetcars with diesel buses. Other companies involved in this practice included Standard oil of California (now known as Chevron Corporation) and Firestone Tire and Rubber Company (now owned by Bridgestone of Japan).

As with most alleged conspiracies, there are a number of controversial theories surrounding this conspiracy, ^{[2] [3]} but there does not seem to be any doubt that a conspiracy of some sort existed. The controversy seems to be about whether what the companies did was illegal, and if so, whether it was a criminal conspiracy or a civil conspiracy.

[edit] Criticisms of light rail in the U.S.

In many cases there has been considerable opposition to new light rail systems, particularly in the United States. Many of these arguments reflect the particular U.S. political conditions, including uses of government funding, considerations of development goals in urbanizing areas, and positions and power of various advocacy and lobbying groups, as well as physical issues, including the relatively low density (as compared to much of Europe and Asia) of many U.S. conurbations, and the extent and use of highway systems. ^[4] Arguments by opponents are often framed in terms of "how much automobile traffic can light rail replace," above all other considerations.

Arguments are generally along three lines:

• modern spatial arrangements are unsuited for fixed-line transit systems such as light rail
• light rail is too slow to compete with the automobile
• light rail does not generate a sufficient return on capital investment to make its construction worthwhile

Driving Forces (1998), by American political scientist and rail transit critic James Dunn, provides a good summary of these arguments.

[edit] Spatial mismatch

The low-density dispersal of residences and employment in modern American metropolitan areas prevents mass transit displacing a significant percentage of automobiles. In the United States, only in metropolitan New York City is transit's share of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) higher than five percent, and in most metropolitan areas, transit carries less than one percent of travel. These percentages are considerably higher for suburb-to-central business district (CBD) commutes, but these trips have dramatically declined as a percentage of VMT since the 1970s. ^{[verification needed]}

While the spatial mismatch argument is largely correct for the Midwest (except Chicagoland), the South, and Southwest, it never was relevant to San Francisco, the nation's second-densest city after New York, and is increasingly not the case in places such as Los Angeles and San Diego. As West Coast cities, in particular, run into their coastal mountain ranges, many have developed polycentric spatial arrangements with a relatively small number of nodes. For most of its history, transit has best served commuters from suburbs to a single CBD. However, this is no longer necessarily the case; in Sacramento and San Diego, particularly, construction of light rail networks that incorporate both circumferential (suburb-to-suburb) and radial (suburb-to-CBD) lines have produced surprisingly high increases in passenger-miles (Thompson and Matoff, 2003).

Nevertheless, with such a small market share, even a doubling of transit ridership would have virtually no impact on traffic congestion. ^{[verification needed]} Smart growth advocates and New Urbanists acknowledge this and call for areas near proposed light rail stations to be developed as relatively high-density "transit villages," minimizing the need for automobile usage while increasing the housing stock. In many areas, NIMBYism is an obstacle to such development.

[edit] Travel time

On average, during peak travel periods, light rail operates only slightly faster than buses and barely one-half as fast as automobiles. ^{[verification needed]} These averaged figures do not account for the degree of congestion, however; light rail on its own right-of-way is considerably less vulnerable to gridlock than automobiles or buses operating in mixed traffic. For example, Los Angeles' heavily-used Blue Line (the United States' second busiest light rail line, with over 80,000 daily passenger boardings, is slower than automobiles at off-peak times but during rush hour, is very competitive with automobiles traveling along the extremely congested Long Beach Freeway (I-710) it parallels. The Harbor Freeway busway nearby is faster than either mode, due to fewer stops, but construction of its dedicated right-of-way was expensive given its very low ridership. Light rail makes sense in areas that suffer from sufficient congestion to make it competitive with cars, and along routes that are too heavily-traveled for even bus rapid transit systems.

[edit] Return on investment and cost-competitiveness for LRT vs. highway

Cost-effectiveness and comparitive capacity are covered in the main light rail article. This section will attempt to provide context to argumentation in the United States political climate based on those facts.

Pro-LRT arguments made regarding cost and return on investment

• Seemingly high construction costs for LRT systems are not taken in proper context as costs of purchasing and maintaining vehicles necessary for a highway system are hidden since private owners pay these expenses.

• Light rail provides savings to the consumer. The Center for Neigborhood Technology (CNT) has shown that those who take mass transit in place of owning cars spend a far smaller fraction of their total income on transit costs[1]. Additionally, the money spent stays local, which is not true of gasoline costs nor automotive insurance payments to nonlocal companies. Approximately 18% of household expenditures are spent on vehicles and transit fares. Residents of cities with well developed rail systems spend an average of $2,808 on vehicles and transit, compared with $3,332 in bus only cities. ^[5]

• Light rail offers many indirect benefits:
  • It is low impact to nearby areas in terms of air and noise pollution
  • Rail-triggered transit-oriented development tends to increase local property values, and often result in neighborhood improvements such as urban redevelopment, historic preservation, and improved pedestrian conditions^[6] white highways can negatively affect community cohesion
  • Rail-based transit can lead to higher land density and clustering in rail-oriented cities providing agglomeration benefits in reducing the costs of providing public services and increasing productivity due to improved accessibility and network effects. ^[7]

• Light rail offers benefits over bus alternatives:
  • Compared with diesel buses, rail can carry more passengers in less land and do so with less noise and air pollution compared with diesel buses^{[citation needed]}. As a result, rail is more suitable for high-density areas.
  • Since rail travel is usually more comfortable, faster (particularly if grade separated) and better integrated into the urban landscape than travel by bus, more people are willing to ride. A survey in Vancouver, Canada found that 42% of Skytrain (rail) riders would otherwise drive, compared with 25-35% of bus riders. ^[8]

• Future rail systems may have higher utility than present ones due to the network effect, wherein the addition of one node to a network increases the utility of other nodes. The experiences of Sacramento, California and Portland, Oregon have demonstrated this phenomenon: in those places, light rail became more competitive with highways as more of the network was put in place. To quote Calgary Transit: "Since the inception of LRT service, each new LRT line or LRT extension has produced a 15 to 20 percent increase in corridor ridership, resulting from the diversion of previous auto drivers to transit."

• Arguments against effectiveness of LRT based on spatial mismatch fail to taken into account that automobiles supplement the reach of a mass transit system, particularly to suburbs, reducing the population density required for a viable system.

• Light rail, like all mass transit, improves the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of existing highways by lowering traffic congestion, particularly during rush hour. At peak capacity, even small reductions in volumes can significantly reduce delays. For example, a 5% reduction in peak-hour traffic volumes on a road at 90% capacity can reduce delay by 20% or more^{[citation needed]}. Thus even a small shift of commuters to rail can significantly reduce travel times for the commuters still driving.

• Rail transit cities have significantly lower per capita traffic death rates. Cities with large rail transit systems average 7.5 traffic fatalities per 100,000 population, ones with small rail systems average 9.9, and bus only cities average 11.7. If cities with large rail systems had the same fatality rate as bus only cities, the United States would have 251 more annual traffic deaths.^[9]

• Costs of running a light rail can be expected to be fairly consistent, whereas the cost of using a highway/road system is heavily dependent on world cost of oil, which is vulnerable to abrupt increases.

• Light rail systems, like all mass transit, provide increased mobility for non-drivers such as those too young to drive, the elderly, and disabled.

• Light rail is more environmentally friendly than highway/road alternatives since rail travel consumes about a fifth as much energy per passenger-mile as automobile travel, due to higher mechanical efficiency and load factors. ^[9]

Anti-LRT arguments made regarding cost and return on investment

• United States light rail systems have a consistent history of low ridership ^[10] translating to low per-person cost-effectivenss.

• The vast majority of light rail systems in the United States operate at a loss so light rail systems can be assumed to be a continued cost to the taxpayer.

• Light rail systems have high construction costs.

• Ridership data in the United States indicates that light rail systems seldom run near full capacity, and so demand does not require such a high capacity system. Bus systems require substantially less investment and mostly are capable of carrying observed demand^{[citation needed]}.

• Light rail is a waste of transit money, producing only 3.6 percent of transit trips yet consuming 12 percent of transit capital funds, taking away needed money from other transit modes^[11].

• Since many light rail riders are merely transplanted bus riders, ridership data overstates how many cars are taken off the road by light rail. Generally, one-half or more of the light rail riders formerly rode bus services that were replaced by the rail service.^[12]

• Most people in the United States live in places where cars are owned out of necessity. As such, they are unable to evade automotive ownership costs, even if primarily taking mass transit. In particular, this is applicable to persons who live sufficiently far from suburban light rail stations that time constraints require driving to utilize the light rail system.

• Rail systems tend to raise local land values, displacing those unable to afford the higher costs.

[edit] Light rail in Canada

Canadian cities have much higher transit use than comparable U.S. cities. Toronto, Ontario (metropolitan population 5 million) has twice the transit ridership of comparable U.S. cities, while Calgary, Alberta and Edmonton, Alberta (metro population 1 million each) have riderships three times comparable U.S. cities.

[edit] Calgary

Despite the fact that Calgary, Alberta would appear to be a conventional car-oriented Western city with far-flung suburbs, the Calgary C-Train system is one of the most successful light rail system in North America, with over 52 million riders per year ^[13]. This is considerably higher than any stand-alone U.S. light rail system and exceeds even that of the Docklands Light Railway in London.

The Calgary system was started in 1981, the result of decisions to avoid building either downtown freeways or a heavy rail system. At that time, Calgary had less than half a million people and was considered too small for rail transit, but when it first opened the C-Train carried about 40,000 passengers per day. By 2006, Calgary was twice as big with 1 million people, but the C-Train system was over three times as long and carried over 200,000 passengers per day. One of the secret's to Calgary's success was that it built almost all of the system at grade, which was much cheaper than subway or elevated construction, and thus had the money available to make the system much longer than it would have been otherwise. Operational data has shown that the further out from the downtown core the LRT stations were, the more riders they attracted, and every time the system was extended, the ridership increased substantially.

42% of the people working downtown take the C-Train to work. Part of the reason is that Calgary's downtown core covers only 1.4 square miles and was originally built by budget-conscious city councils with narrow streets to save money. However, in the second half of the 20^th century growth exceeded expectations and as of 2006, Calgary was the second largest head office center in Canada with 32 million square feet of office space and 120,000 people working in the downtown core. The C-Train carries the equivalent number of people to 16 lanes of freeway, without the parking issues - there are fewer than 0.4 downtown parking places available per worker.

Despite the downtown rush, 25% of the riders during rush hour are counterflow commuters - going out of downtown during the morning and into it during the afternoon. Many of these are students going to educational institutions - who receive deep discounts because they are filling seats that otherwise would be empty, and workers doing crosstown commutes to avoid the lack of freeways.

As of late 2006, the City of Calgary had twice the population it had when the LRT system was first begun, and was having trouble buying LRT vehicles fast enough to keep up with demand, which had grown considerably faster than the population. An additional problem that Calgary Transit faced was finding enough drivers due to a severe labor shortage in the city. In fact, the privately owned Airport Shuttle service was forced to cease operations in late 2006 due to an inability to find drivers for the buses.

[edit] Edmonton

By contrast with Calgary, in Edmonton, Alberta the Edmonton Transit System built much of its light rail system underground, which meant that it could not afford to lay as much track to the suburbs. In addition, Edmonton's central business district has less office space and the single line which was built did not reach areas which housed many commuters to downtown. The system is successful by North American Standards, but not nearly as successful as Calgary's - it has attracted only a sixth of the ridership. Edmonton is building new extensions at grade that will extend to the TOD Century Park.

According to John Bakker, professor emeritus at the University of Alberta and one of the original designers of the system, in an article to be published in January 2007 by Transport 2000 Canada, going underground was a serious mistake. "Going into tunnels is about 10 times as expensive as going on the surface because you have to relocate utilities", said Mr Bakker. "Edmonton went into tunnels first, and it really bogged down everything thereafter, because they didn't have money". Edmonton system is only 12 km long, while Calgary's light-rail system covered 33 km for about the same cost.^[14] As a result, by 2006 Edmonton's LRT ridership was only 42,000 per day, while Calgary's was over 200,000 and growing rapidly.

[edit] Vancouver

In 1986, Vancouver, British Columbia built the Expo Line of the SkyTrain. It is the longest automated light rapid transit system in the world. ^[15] In addition to using driverless trains, it uses a pair of live rails rather than overhead wires to supply electricity, meaning that it cannot operate in the street or use level crossings. Since it is not really light rail it is more often called an Advanced Rapid Transit system. The system, including the newer Millennium Line extension, carries about 66 million passengers annually. Vancouver's two new lines, the Canada Line and Evergreen Line, are planned to be grade-separated automated light transit and at-grade light rail, respectively.

[edit] Ottawa

In the 1970s and 1980s Ottawa, Ontario opted for mostly grade-separated busways (the Ottawa Transitway) on the theory that buses were cheaper than light rail. In practice, the capital costs escalated from the original estimate of C$97 million to a final value of C$440 million, a cost overrun of about 450%.^[16] This is nearly as high as Calgary's C-Train system, which had a capital cost of C$548 million, is about the same length, and carries a similar number of passengers (about 200,000 per workday).^[17]

The lack of a subway or elevated transitway in the downtown means that travel is relatively slow through the downtown core. However, this problem has been reduced through the use of double bus lanes. Also, the greater frequency of stops in the urban core limits the potential benefits of grade-segregated right of way. As of 2006, the system was close to maximum capacity, requiring 180 to 200 diesel buses per hour per direction (phd) to pass through the downtown streets of Ottawa to carry 10,000 passengers phd.^[18] (This compares to 24 electric trains phd for the same passenger load on the Calgary C-Train system.)

Meaningful cost and performance data is difficult to obtain from OC Transpo. However, third-party analyses have identified some problems with the initial plans:^[19]

1. Overestimated BRT vehicle capacity by 50% or more.
2. Underestimated operating costs and certain capital costs.
3. Overestimated BRT performance relative to LRT.

The biggest problem was that early studies of BRT systems grossly overestimated tolerance for crowding on buses. Subsequent studies have shown that Canadians and Americans will not ride on buses carrying more than 3 passengers per metre of length. As a result, to achieve Ottawa’s original design maximum of 15,000 passengers phd would require 300-500 diesel buses phd, which is not achievable in the current central business district layout. By comparison North Americans will tolerate 4 to 5 passengers per metre in an LRV, and LRV’s can be run in multiple units, so a modern LRT system can easily reach a capacity of 15,000 passengers phd by running 100 metre trains on 2 minute headways.

Cost data is hard to obtain from Ottawa, but Calgary Transit, which runs both a BRT system and an LRT system with the same volume as the Ottawa Transitway has quantified and compared BRT and LRT costs:^[20]

1. Busway capital costs range from $3 to $22 million/km; Calgary LRT construction costs were $15 million/km
2. Buses are considerably cheaper to buy than LRVs, but due to lower capacities and shorter life expectancies, overall vehicle costs are about the same.
3. Calgary BRT operating costs are low (C$0.89 per ride) but LRT costs are lower (C$0.25 per ride) because LRT is considerably cheaper to operate when there is a high passenger demand.

In 2001, Ottawa opened a diesel light rail pilot project, (the O-Train), which was relatively inexpensive to construct, due to its route along a neglected freight-rail right of way. O-Train has had some success in attracting new ridership to the system (a few thousand more riders), due to its connnection of a south end big box shopping mall (South Keys), through Carleton University to the east-west busway (Ottawa Transitway) near the downtown core of the city.

Ottawa has produced plans to expand both the Transitway and to open additional rail routes. The intention of the light rail project is to add to the system, not to replace the existing Transitway.

[edit] See also

United States

• List of United States Light Rail systems by ridership
• Public Transportation in San Diego
• Transportation in Dallas, Texas
• Transportation in Houston
• Transportation in Portland, Oregon
• Transportation in San Francisco
• Transportation in Salt Lake City
• Transportation of St. Louis, Missouri
• Rail transit in metropolitan Denver
• Rail transit in Boston
• Transportation in San Jose, California
• Tranportation in Hudson Country, New Jersey
• Rail transit in Kenosha, Wisconsin
• Transportation in New York City

Canada

• Calgary C-Train
• Edmonton Light Rail Transit
• Ottawa Rapid Transit
• Scarborough (Toronto) Rapid Transit
• Toronto streetcar system
• Vancouver SkyTrain

Mexico

• Xochimilco Light Rail

[edit] External links

• A movie of Armour's electric trolley, circa 1897 from Library of Congress
• List of Canadian urban rail systems
• Table of Light Rail Transit Agencies in the United States
• Commuter Rail, Light Rail & Rail Transit News
• Light Rail Central photos & news
• American Public Transit Association
• Federal Transit Administration (U.S.)
• Light Rail & Transit News Current news concerning light rail development and issues
• Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the U.S. National Research Council

[edit] Links to U.S. sites opposing light rail

• 'Breech of Faith: Light Rail and Smart Growth' highlighting alleged wastefulness and ineffectiveness of light rail projects An argument against utilization of a light rail system in Charlotte, NC
• 'Reason Foundation Policy Studies on Light Rail' The Reason Foundation presents a series of reports documenting the poor ridership and financial performance of light rail systems in the U.S.
• 'Rapid Transit, Light Rail & Monorail Index' The Public Purpose has a catalog of articles showing the problems of light rail.
• 'Jonathan Richmond's Professional Section' Jonathan Richmond has written many papers on the shortcomings of light rail.
• LightRail POW! - A website documenting the safety hazards of light rail
• The Monorail Society - A pro-monorail web site that promotes grade-separate rather than street-based transit.

[edit] References

1. ^ Gregory L. Thompson (2003), Defining an Alternative Future: Birth of the Light Rail Movement in North America, Transportation Research Board, http://trb.org/publications/circulars/ec058/03_01_Thompson.pdf
2. ^ Snell, Bradford (1995). The Streetcar Conspiracy - How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit. The New Electric Railway Journal. Retrieved on 2006-11-06.
3. ^ Wilkins, Van (1995). The Conspiracy Revisited. The New Electric Railway Journal. Retrieved on 2006-11-06.
4. ^ Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States--Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects,Transportation Research Board, http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=4060
5. ^ BLS (2003). Consumer Expenditure Survey. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
6. ^ Eppli, Mark, Charles C. Tu, (2000). Valuing the New Urbanism: The Impact of New Urbanism on Prices of Single-Family Homes. Urban Land Institute.
7. ^ Litman, Todd (2003). Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
8. ^ Litman, Todd (2004). Rail Transit In America -- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits. American Public Transport Association. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
9. ^ ^{a b} Kenworthy, Jeffrey, Felix Laube (2000). Millennium Cities Database For Sustainable Transport. Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy.
10. ^ http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/351jldsx.asp The Search for the Holy Rail
11. ^ http://www.reason.org/ps336.pdf
12. ^ http://www.publicpurpose.com/charlotte.htm
13. ^ Hubbel and Colquhoun (2006) "Light Rail Transit in Calgary - The First 25 Years", Joint International Light Rail Conference, St. Louis, Missouri http://www.calgarytransit.com/Calgarys_LRT_1st_25Years_TRB%20_revised.pdf
14. ^ Ward, Bruce, Angela Pereira. "Stay out of the tunnel, transit expert warns", The Ottawa Citizen, December 07, 2006. Retrieved on 2006-12-07.
15. ^ Translink (2006). Skytrain. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. Retrieved on 2006-10-31.
16. ^ Gow, Harry (2001). Ottawa's BRT "Transitway": Modern Miracle or Mega-Mirage?. Transport 2000 Canada. Retrieved on 2006-12-06.
17. ^ CTS (2006). LRT Technical Data. About CT. Calgary Transit. Retrieved on 2006-12-06.
18. ^ Transit Cooperative Research Progam (2003). Ottawa, Ontario BRT Case Study. TCRP Report 90, Volume 1, BRT Case Studies. Transportation Research Board. Retrieved on 2006-12-07.
19. ^ Demery Jr, L W; Higgins, J W (2003). "Peak-Period Service Supply Versus Observed Passenger Utilization for Rapid Bus and Rapid Rail Modes: Issues and Implications". 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference, 351-370, Portland, Oregon: Transportation Research Board.
20. ^ Transit Planning (2002 March). A Review of Bus Rapid Transit (PDF). Calgary Transit.