|
Creditworthy investigations,
from within Australia, the USA and Europe, on the relative cost-effectiveness of
buses/light rail/heavy rail, conclude that buses are more frequent, materially cheaper and more
flexible to changing public transport demands
Below is an extract from
page 138 of
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY COMMISSION Urban
Transport - Volume 1: Report No. 37 - 15 Feb 1994:
"Box A6.2:
Costs of service
—rail
and buses
(pg 138)
Appendix D finds that in Adelaide,
Melbourne and Perth buses have lower costs of service per
passenger-kilometre and seat-kilometre than rail, trams or ferries. It also
concludes that in these cities:
•
the average real
cost of service per passenger-kilometre for buses is more than two-fifths
lower than for rail;
•
the average cost
per seat kilometre for rail services is double what it is for buses;
•
the difference in
the cost of service is partly due to the fact that buses use less
capital, and require less expenditure on maintenance;"
Detailed
investigations in both
Texas USA 2009 and Italy 2020 conclude
that buses are a more cost-effective mode of
public transport.
"On
average, bus rapid transit (BRT) costs $10.24 million in 1990
dollars per mile to build. This figure is less than half that of
that for light rail transit (LightRailTransit), $26.4 million and
one-tenth of metro rail transit (MetroRailTransit), $128.2 million".
A
recent investigation in Italy,
Rail versus bus local public transport services: A social cost comparison
methodology (Sept 2020)
reported favourably on the cost-benefit
of removing rail infrastructure and replacing
with electric Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) lanes:
"The obtained results would
suggest, given the existing levels of demand, to plan a substitution of
the rail service with a bus service.
In fact, the analysis shows that
the bus mode is able to serve the demand at a much lower social cost,
preserving almost the same service quality.
Then, simple simulations suggest
that for the case at study rail service should be preferred only when
the level of daily demand doubles and the difference between peak and
off-peak almost disappears. In any other circumstances, the bus service
appears to be more efficient even when including external costs related
to air pollution, congestion and accidents.
It is finally worth noting that the proposed approach might also induce,
in the medium-long term, a change in local transport infrastructure
investment policies. Indeed, in
the case that Italian local routes based on isolated or terminating
railroad tracks should switch from rail to bus service, the tracks might
be substituted for example by roads dedicated to (electric) Bus Rapid
Transport (BRT) lanes, which represent an intermediate transport mode
between bus and rail ones in terms of capacity and flexibility to adapt
to market developments."
|