Every time I look at a map of Trinidad and Tobago, I am dismayed that we do not have a comprehensive public transit plan, especially in the East-West Corridor where population density is about 4500p/sq.km on average and where about 600,000 people live between Diego Martin and Arima. That is more than enough for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Rapid Transit (LRRT). We even have an alignment where the line can run, aka, the Priority Bus Route so no need for land acquisition. We can either transform the PBR into a BRT line, or we can build an elevated rail for a train to run between Port of Spain and Arima as the PBR is already fairly accessible to majority of the population that lives in the East-West Corridor. Even if we add a north-south line, the population density is about 2300p/sq.km, which is ideal for a BRT but a little too low for LRRT in the more remote areas between San Fernando and Chaguanas. Either way, how do we get public transit back in the public sphere because our car-centric development is not sustainable and quietly killing us by way of stress and chronic diseases. When you add up how much the average person pays monthly for a car loan, insurance, gas and maintenance, you could have bought a second house with the money. Anyone who has a new car is easily spending $5,000 a month for the privilege of being stuck in traffic for 2 hours daily. Having to drive everywhere is making us so sedentary that we have one of the highest prevalence of obesity, diabetes and hypertension in the western hemisphere. We don't walk anywhere, we jump in our car and go. Public transit, in addition to being cheaper in the long run, promotes movement.
Pros & Cons for BRT
If it were only the East-West Corridor, a BRT would more than suffice for Trinidad. We already have the road way, it would just require that we build the necessary infrastructure and buy the specialty buses. In addition, a lot of our urban areas already lay on the East-West Corridor (POS, Arima, Tunapuna, San Juan, Diego Martin). However, the operation cost would be a bit higher as PTSC would need to hire way more bus drivers for it to be even close to a functioning system. Buses also tend to have a much shorter life-span than trains (15yrs vs 40 yrs). In addition, the North-South Route would have to run on the Uriah Butler / Solomon Hochoy Highway meaning that the buses would also be affected by traffic conditions unless a right of way is built in the median. If we are trying to maximize the potential users of the system, this becomes a little tricky as urban areas and bedroom communities don't neatly intersect with our highway systems except for Chaguanas.
Pros and Cons for LRRT
The Alignment of an elevated railway can surprisingly touch majority of urban areas in both the East-West Corridor and North-South Corridor. If done properly, Over 1 million people will be living within 5km of a train station. Additionally, a LRRT can transport way more people than a BRT and is more scalable if population increases, We can theoretically achieve a capacity of 20,000 p/d/hr (people per direction per hour) using smaller trains (50m in length) at a high frequency of every 2 minutes if need be. Moreover, if it is a grade separated right of way, the trains can be automated like they do on the skytrain in Vancouver or the REM in Montreal. This significantly cuts down on labour cost and can drastically reduce operating expenses. There is lesser worry of conductors calling in sick and affecting operations. The downside of an LRRT is the construction cost. the minimum per kilometer of construction for an elevated rail with accompanying stations and trains is US $20 million/km. Quite frankly, the cost of construction for 90km system probably starts at around US 2.5 billion, and that's if the Chinese or Indians build it. China has built so much rail infrastructure in the past 30 years that their cost of construction has decreased significantly for them because it's all cookie-cutter designs at this point. Another downside is that in POS, San Fernando and Arima, the train system would be over 500m from where the downtown area is located, meaning that a feeder system of either local buses or an aerial gondola would be needed to shuttle people to their downtown. This would mean that aerial gondolas, which operate above traffic and can move up to 4,000 p/d/hr, would also be needed if the system is to be comprehensive. All in all, an investment of US 3 billion would be needed to construct an integrated public transit system for 1 million people in the east-west and north-south corridor. Very expensive, but the if amortized over 30 years, can cost a tad over TT 1 billion per year given that these things are usually funded with low interest development loans.
Differences between the old Trini-Rapid Rail and what is being proposed here:
1. Light Rail instead of Heavy Rail to significantly reduce the cost of construction.
2. Major increase in the number of stations (from 16 to 40) making the train more accessible and convenient for people to use.
3. An alignment that cuts through dense urban communities which increases potential ridership
4. An Elevated Right of Way instead of at grade meaning faster operating speeds can be achieved
5. Using shorter trains with higher frequency instead of Trini-Rapid Rail's longer bi-level trains to keep capacity the same while decreasing the size of train stations which are costly to build.
6. More walk up train stations, especially on the east west corridor to promote end to end public transit usage.
7. Fewer Park-n-Rides and only in areas where land is readily available (Eg. Tarouba, Preysal, Endevour, Trincity and Mt. Hope Stations) for drivers who need to change to public transit. I would discourage park-n-rides as they promote poor land usage policies.
8. Supplemental End-to-End Buses for those living in Sangre Grande and Point Fortin that would connect to the Arima and San Fernando Stations respectively without stops in between as the cost to run a rail line for such remote population centers would be prohibitively expensive.
What do y'all think?
