LRT and MRT: Structural Design Differences in Urban Transportation

LRT (Light Rail Transit) and MRT (Mass Rapid Transit – commonly referred to as metro) are both urban passenger railway transit systems. However, there are significant differences between LRT and MRT in terms of train technology, infrastructure scale, passenger capacity, and intended use. Understanding the differences between LRT and MRT helps planners and engineers choose the right solution for urban transport needs, while also enabling the public to better grasp the features of each type of modern public transit. The following article provides a comprehensive analysis of the differences between LRT and MRT, with specific examples and connections to the structural design of urban rail infrastructure.

1. What are LRT and MRT?

First, it is important to understand the definitions of LRT and MRT:

LRT (Light Rail Transit) – literally “light rail” – is a form of urban railway that evolved from traditional ground-level tramway technology but has been upgraded to be more modern. LRT typically operates light rail vehicles (LRVs) that may run singly or in short trainsets of 2–4 cars, with lower capacity and speed compared to heavy rail systems such as metro/subway. In other words, LRT is a hybrid between tram and metro – more flexible than metro, able to operate at-grade or on dedicated tracks, and serving shorter urban routes.

MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) is essentially another term for metro/heavy rail urban transit. Metro (MRT) is a form of public transport with very high passenger capacity (tens of thousands per hour), built in large cities. MRT operates on exclusive rights-of-way, typically electrified, completely segregated from road traffic and pedestrians. Lines can be underground (subway) or elevated (skytrain/viaduct), but always grade-separated. MRT trains consist of many large cars, carry large volumes of passengers, and travel at high speeds between widely spaced stations.

In summary: LRT is “light” urban rail – flexible, small-to-medium scale; MRT is “heavy” urban rail (metro) – large scale, high-capacity. Next, we will examine specific aspects: train technology, passenger capacity and frequency, infrastructure and structural design, as well as practical applications of LRT and MRT.

2. Train Technology and Operations

1. Train size and composition: MRT trains are generally much larger than LRT trains. A typical MRT train can consist of 4 to 8 cars, with a total train length of 80–200 meters depending on the system. For example, Singapore’s MRT commonly operates 6-car trains, while other metro lines may run 8–10 cars. By contrast, LRT trains are more compact, typically 2–3 cars; some LRT systems even run single-car tram-like vehicles. The shorter train length allows LRT to maneuver through narrow city streets and stop at small stations.

2. Weight and axle load: As the name suggests, LRT vehicles are lighter, with lower axle loads compared to MRT trains. This results in less force exerted on tracks and viaducts, allowing lighter infrastructure (to be discussed in the infrastructure section). MRT trains, being larger and heavier, require more robust structures. This is a critical technological difference with direct implications for structural design.

3. Speed and acceleration: MRT trains usually reach speeds of 70–100 km/h, with high acceleration and braking forces, which create significant inertial and centrifugal loads when passing viaducts or curves. Engineers must therefore design bridges, piers, and tracks with higher stiffness, and calculate curve superelevation to reduce derailment risks. LRT trains, on the other hand, run at lower speeds (average 30–50 km/h), are lighter, and generate smaller dynamic loads, so structural demands are less stringent; bridges and tracks can be designed “lighter,” allowing tighter curves and steeper gradients.

4. Maneuverability (curve radius, gradients): With smaller and more flexible trains, LRT can handle tighter curves and steeper gradients (up to ~6% depending on system), making it easier to follow street alignments and reducing the need for large-scale tunnels/viaducts. MRT, with longer and heavier trains, requires larger curve radii and gradient limits of ~3–4%, forcing gentler alignments and often necessitating tunnels or elevated viaducts in steep terrain. This technological advantage of LRT reduces the need for complex infrastructure.

5. Traction and power supply: Both modern LRT and MRT systems use electric traction. However, the power supply method often differs: LRT typically uses overhead catenary systems (OCS, 750V DC common), while MRT systems may use either OCS or a third rail power supply (750V or 1500V DC depending on design). (Note: Some modern LRT systems adopt ground-level power supply or battery technology to avoid overhead wires, but these are not yet widespread.)

6. Control and automation: Control and automation mainly concern operating technology but indirectly affect structural design and MEP integration. MRT systems usually feature high automation (ATO, CBTC), requiring additional space in stations and infrastructure for control rooms, signal cabling, platform screen doors, and safety systems. In contrast, LRT often operates manually, so stations are smaller and auxiliary structures simpler.

7. Stations and passenger interface: MRT stations are typically large-scale structures, with high platforms level with the train floor, multi-level reinforced construction, wide concourses, and platform screen doors for safety and climate control. Consequently, MRT stations are complex structures designed to withstand very large passenger loads. By contrast, LRT stations are smaller: at-grade stops may be simple raised platforms, while elevated LRT stations are short and narrow platforms suitable for 2–3-car trains. LRT stations often lack screen doors and may use low-floor boarding for easy access, resulting in simpler, lower-cost structures.

Due to these technological differences between LRT and MRT, their passenger capacity differs significantly, which we will analyze in the next section.

3. Passenger Capacity and Transport Efficiency

One of the most distinct differences between LRT and MRT is passenger capacity – the number of passengers a system can transport per hour, as well as its operational frequency. MRT is designed for very high volumes, while LRT targets medium capacity.

1. Train capacity: As noted above, MRT trains are larger and longer, carrying far more passengers than LRT. For instance, a 6-car MRT train can carry approximately 1,000–2,000 passengers per trip (seated and standing), depending on car size and interior layout. Some metro systems operate 8–10-car trains, with ~200–300 passengers per car, reaching 2,000–3,000 passengers per trip at peak times. By contrast, LRT trains of 2–3 cars carry far fewer passengers – typically around 500–600 at full load. A single-car LRT may carry only 150–200 passengers. Thus, MRT can carry 3–5 times more passengers per trip than LRT, which is why MRT is termed “mass transit.”
2. Frequency and headways: MRT lines benefit from advanced signaling and fully segregated alignments, enabling short headways of 2–3 minutes, even up to 30 trains per hour per direction. LRT, however, typically runs less frequently (5–10 minutes during peak hours) due to traffic interference or infrastructure constraints.
3. Station spacing: MRT stations are spaced farther apart (1–2 km), allowing faster average speeds and fewer stops. LRT stations are closer (500–800 m), improving accessibility but reducing average speed and throughput. In short, MRT prioritizes speed and capacity, while LRT prioritizes flexible urban access.
4. Peak Hour Peak Direction Capacity (PPHPD): MRT systems typically achieve 30,000–80,000 pphpd (many systems ~50,000–70,000), while LRT systems usually handle ~12,000–20,000; some exceptional optimized cases (e.g., Calgary C-Train after upgrades) reach ~40,000. Higher PPHPD requires larger structures: longer platforms (120–200 m), wide concourses and evacuation stairs, stronger floors to support crowds, and stiffer bridges and track structures. LRT, with lower PPHPD, allows shorter and narrower stations, smaller piers and girders, and lower costs.
5. Service roles and demand: MRT is built for high-demand corridors such as connections between city centers and densely populated areas. At peak times, MRT can carry volumes equivalent to thousands of buses. LRT, on the other hand, serves medium or lower demand – for example, linking districts, feeding passengers to MRT, or circulating within central districts for tourists. LRT’s capacity is comparable to or slightly above that of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). If passenger demand grows beyond its design, LRT can quickly become overloaded.
6. Flexibility for expansion: MRT systems can be expanded relatively easily by adding cars per train (if infrastructure allows) or increasing frequency with upgraded signaling. LRT is more limited – trains usually cannot be lengthened much due to short platforms and urban street constraints, and higher frequencies may create conflicts at road crossings. Therefore, MRT is preferred for long-term high-demand corridors, while LRT is suited for secondary routes or budget-limited projects.

In summary: MRT outperforms LRT in per-trip capacity and peak-hour throughput. MRT serves as the backbone of mass transit, carrying tens of thousands per hour along main corridors, while LRT provides flexible feeder service for several thousand per hour. This capacity difference determines the infrastructure scale required, as we will analyze next.

4. Infrastructure and Structural Design of LRT and MRT

Due to differences in rolling stock and capacity, LRT and MRT systems have very different infrastructure and structural requirements. This is a critical aspect for construction engineers, as it affects costs, construction methods, and urban design.

4.1. Right-of-Way

• MRT (Metro): Always runs on fully exclusive right-of-way (Category A), completely separated from surface traffic. In urban cores, lines are usually underground to save space; in suburbs, elevated viaducts are common. This segregation increases construction cost and complexity (TBM tunnels, heavy viaducts) but ensures superior speed, safety, and capacity.

• LRT: More flexible – it can run at-grade in streets (Category C), semi-exclusive in medians (Category B), or fully exclusive like metro (Category A). Many networks combine segments. At-grade saves cost and space but faces signal delays and traffic conflicts; therefore, exclusive alignments are preferred at intersections. Some LRT systems approach “light metro” standards (e.g., Manila LRT-2, Kelana Jaya LRT).

4.2. Railway Infrastructure Structure

• Tracks and trackbed: For MRT, heavy loads and high speeds require the rail–sleeper–trackbed structure to be designed to heavy rail standards: large cross-section rails, concrete sleepers, or continuous concrete slab tracks to ensure stiffness and geometric stability. LRT is lighter, so smaller rails may be used; in street-running sections, grooved rails embedded in pavement (street track) are common, allowing other vehicles to pass. On segregated and higher-speed LRT sections, many networks still adopt metro-style structures (slab/ballastless) to enhance durability. In general, MRT has much stricter technical requirements for load-bearing capacity, alignment accuracy, and settlement/deflection control, since derailment and damage risks under heavy load and high speed are significantly greater.
• Curve radius and superelevation: As mentioned, MRT requires large curve radii (typically >200 m, depending on speed), while LRT can negotiate smaller radii (<100 m if operating at low speed). Therefore, MRT track structures need superelevation (rail cant) in curves to prevent overturning at high speeds, whereas low-speed street-running LRT may require little or no superelevation. From an urban design perspective, MRT alignment is less flexible in weaving through winding streets, while LRT can curve smoothly along roadways, reducing land acquisition and clearance volumes.
• Maximum gradient: MRT gradients are limited (typically ~3.5%–5% depending on standards) because heavy trains struggle to climb steep slopes, while LRT can climb up to 6% or more over short distances (modern LRT trains have powerful motors and strong adhesion). Therefore, when encountering uneven terrain, LRT can follow the surface alignment without needing long tunnels or extended viaducts as MRT does. For example, an LRT line can cross a river via a shorter bridge, while an MRT line may require a much longer viaduct to maintain gradients within permissible limits.

4.3. Viaducts and Tunnels

• Viaducts: Both LRT and MRT can operate on elevated structures, but load requirements determine the scale of the structure. MRT typically uses large prestressed concrete or steel girders, with typical spans of ~25–35 m; cross-section width for two tracks (track spacing ~4 m) plus safety margins results in a total width of ~7–10 m; deep girders are needed to resist bending moments; construction often involves heavy segmental launching or balanced cantilever methods; large piers with deep foundations are required. LRT, being lighter, allows slimmer viaducts with spans of ~20–25 m, using precast I-girders or box girders; cross-section width for two tracks is ~6–7.6 m; prefabrication and rapid assembly are preferred to minimize traffic disruption; slender piers are easier to position within existing roadways. In summary, MRT demands “heavy-duty” structures, while LRT allows lighter and more flexible solutions.
• Tunnels: Tunnel construction is very costly, so LRT generally avoids long tunnels. If LRT runs underground for short sections in city centers, it is usually because no other option is feasible (for example, some European LRT lines go underground briefly beneath squares to avoid congestion). MRT, however, often operates long underground sections beneath dense city centers (subways). MRT tunnels must be large enough to accommodate big trains, typically with TBM-bored tunnel diameters of ~5–6 m per tube (two tubes for two directions). LRT tunnels may be slightly smaller in diameter if trains are smaller, but in general the difference is not significant due to safety clearance standards. Since LRT can handle steeper gradients, transition sections between underground and surface can be shorter, reducing construction costs for approaches.

4.4. Stations and Ancillary Structures

• MRT Stations: These are large-scale civil works. Underground stations are often multi-level (concourse, platform), constructed as reinforced concrete boxes with thick walls resisting soil pressure; elevated stations are long and heavy concrete or steel-framed structures. They integrate platform screen doors, ventilation systems, fire protection, escalators, etc. Structural design must ensure floors and frames can simultaneously support the concentrated loads of thousands of passengers, resulting in very robust and complex construction.
• LRT Stations: More compact and simpler. At-grade stations may be only raised platforms with canopies; elevated stations are short decks suitable for 2–3-car trains. Many systems use open boarding (no screen doors, simplified ticketing), reducing the need for extensive technical spaces and concentrated load capacity. Construction is faster and cheaper, though comfort and passive safety levels are lower, and small stations can quickly become overcrowded under sudden passenger surges.
• Depots and Maintenance Facilities: Generally, MRT depots (main yards and workshops) are much larger than those of LRT. MRT depots must accommodate dozens of long trainsets, including extensive yard tracks and large workshops equipped with cranes to lift car bodies and bogies. LRT depots are smaller—sometimes only a few short storage tracks and a workshop long enough for a short trainset. Land requirements are therefore much larger for MRT (often >10 ha), while LRT depots can fit into smaller footprints. This is an important planning consideration, as large plots of land near city centers are hard to secure for MRT depots, whereas LRT depots are easier to site.

5. Construction Costs and Urban Impacts Strongly Influence the Choice Between LRT and MRT

From the points above, it is clear that MRT construction costs are significantly higher than those of LRT. Building underground metro tunnels can cost hundreds of millions of USD per kilometer, and constructing MRT viaducts is also expensive due to large structures, land acquisition for piers, and large stations. In contrast, LRT/monorail costs are much lower and easier to build since they rarely require tunneling. Furthermore, LRT construction can have less impact on traffic: prefabricated girders and piers can be assembled quickly, minimizing road closures. In dense urban areas, this is a major advantage—for example, LRT viaduct girders can be installed overnight while traffic flows normally during the day, whereas metro tunneling requires prolonged street barricades to build shafts.

Aesthetic impacts: MRT viaducts are often massive and, if poorly designed, can “divide” urban space on both sides of the road. MRT piers are bulky and may occupy sidewalks, obstructing visibility. In contrast, LRT viaducts are slimmer and less visually intrusive. However, at-grade LRT can interfere with surface traffic (by occupying part of the roadway or intersecting crossings), and careful consideration is needed to avoid causing congestion.

6. Connectivity and Expansion Between LRT and MRT

MRT is often planned as the backbone of urban transportation, so MRT stations are typically surrounded by connecting bus, BRT, or LRT routes that provide feeder services. For example, in Singapore, the MRT network serves the main corridors, while smaller LRT lines are built as “feeder” systems—linking residential areas to MRT stations (Source: Light Rail Transit (Singapore)). This creates structural design requirements: MRT stations are often integrated with bus terminals or configured with space to enable rapid passenger transfers. LRT stations can be sited close to MRT stations so passengers can transfer on foot. In such cases, the structural design of LRT and MRT stations must account for the interface—this may involve pedestrian bridges linking the two stations, or a single integrated station complex.

In summary, in terms of infrastructure and structures: MRT requires “heavy-duty” infrastructure—large viaducts, deep tunnels, and big stations—meaning high costs and technical complexity but delivering superior service capacity. LRT allows “lighter” infrastructure—at-grade running or smaller viaducts, simple stations—so costs are lower, construction is faster, and urban integration is more flexible. The trade-off lies in capacity and speed: LRT is appropriate when moderate capacity is acceptable to save on infrastructure, whereas MRT requires substantial investment to achieve maximum capacity. Therefore, choosing between LRT and MRT in planning typically weighs both passenger demand and available investment resources.

7. Conclusion

LRT and MRT are both advanced urban transit solutions, each with its own strengths and limitations suited to different purposes.

It can be said that no system is “absolutely better”—everything depends on the specific context. In densely populated cities with long corridors, MRT is the remedy; in medium-sized cities or particular districts, LRT can be the flexible and economical answer. In practice, the current trend is to combine both: build MRT for the backbone corridors and use LRT/tram/BRT for the branch network. This approach has proven effective in many places around the world.

For Vietnam, as cities modernize their infrastructure, understanding the differences between LRT and MRT will help planners make the right choice for each project. At the same time, the public should clearly understand these two concepts—to avoid mismatched expectations, such as expecting MRT but receiving LRT, or vice versa. We hope this article has provided a comprehensive, well-evidenced view to clearly distinguish LRT and MRT, thereby adding to readers’ knowledge of urban transit and the structural design of urban railway infrastructure.

Planning an LRT/MRT Project?

Let’s discuss your goals. Pontech can help you define optimal structural options and a modular erection strategy tailored to tight urban sites—so construction is clean, fast, and predictable.