Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Expert strata, facilities & building management services

Busways, Capital Metro and greenhouse emissions

By Leon Arundell 3 June 2016 29

Bus stop

A Gungahlin to Civic busway offers greater overall economic benefits than Stage 1 of Capital Metro, and will probably cause fewer greenhouse emissions.

This story begins in 2012. Labor needed to win most of the four Greens seats at the October election if it was to avoid another term of minority government. The Greens had promised $200 million funding for light rail, in the belief that it would cost less than the $288 million Majura Parkway.

The Government’s April 2012 City to Gungahlin Transit Corridor Concept Design Report supported the Greens’ policy. Its simplistic review of costs and benefits concluded that light rail would provide higher benefits, despite an estimated cost of $860 million.

The only remaining questions seemed to when the government would decide to build light rail, and be which party or parties would make up that government.

Then in August the Government produced a submission to Infrastructure Australia that dismissed bus lanes and transit lanes on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions, and included a cost benefit analysis that showed that a $249 million busway would provide benefits worth between $492 million and $1,188 million. Light rail would cost an extra $276 million, but would deliver less than $44 million worth of extra benefits.i

To release the report less than three months before an election would open a debate about methodologies, assumptions, costings and uncosted factors, as had happened a year earlier with the report on which the Government based its decision to build the $180,000 Civic Cycle Loop (which eventually cost $6 million).

The Government kept the Infrastructure Australia report from the public until long after the election. Instead of committing to a busway, Labor committed to spend $30 million on light rail and “committed to increasing the public transport share of all work trips to 10.5% by 2016 and 16% by 2026.” The 2015 ACTION Expenditure Review reported that by 2014 that share had fallen to 7.1%ii.

If the Government gets back on track to reach its 2026 commitment, then increasing bus patronage will mean that every bus displaced from the Gungahlin-Civic route will be back to full operation within a year.

But the Chief Minister announced on 20 October 2015 that the bus trips displaced by Stage 1 would be reallocated to “more buses, on more routes”. This means that, even though Stage 1 will operate on 100% renewable energy, there will be no reduction in public transport greenhouse emissions when Stage 1 commences operation.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Capital Metro Stage 1 estimated that its construction would cause 60,853.76 tonnes of greenhouse emissions.iii

In a recent letter to the Canberra Times I asked why Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury welcomed the signing of a contract for a project whose construction will cause 60,000 tonnes of greenhouse emissions, that will not reduce public transport operating emissions and that will discourage public transport use by removing bus stops, and replacing direct services with connecting services that require walking between stops, waiting for pedestrian signals and wondering if the connecting service has already left.
I could have added that Capital Metro will offer less frequent services.

Mr Rattenbury replied, “The evidence shows that Leon Arundell’s assertions … are in fact wrong … When suggesting that light rail will increase emissions, or traffic, it should always be compared with the alternatives.

The only evidence he identified was a report by Steffen, Percival and Flannery that did not take into account emissions from light rail construction, did not consider bus rapid transit patronage, and based its emissions estimates on the curious assumptions that as few as 25% of bus patrons “whose current route is solely or predominantly down the Gungahlin-city corridor or the Dickson-City segment of the corridor will shift to light rail.

Footnotes:

i See Tables 50 to 53 of the 2012 Infrastructure Australia Submission – (PDF 3.1MB)

ii Table 28 of the 2015 ACTION Expenditure Review.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
29 Responses to
Busways, Capital Metro and greenhouse emissions
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
wildturkeycanoe 11:28 pm 07 Jun 16

Mordd – IndyMedia said :

I get the car noise incessantly both outside my office and at home. Love to put a db meter on it but it is way above annoying and above conversation level.

Of course given damaged hearing, your experience (not of any tram apparently) may be different.

One thing is certain, there is an occasional very quiet tram and hundreds of loud non-stop cars, or buses and the easily experienced reality says that you are badly wrong.

From the Gold Coast Bulletin – “COMPLAINTS from hundreds of sleep-deprived residents in high-rise units along the light rail track have forced the State Government to review the tram speed limit.”
Yes it was from 2014, but there are still some complaints after after they supposedly rectified it recently.
Is not one of the benefits of living along the transport corridor that on top of paying a lot more for your accomodation, you get the added bonus of the continual traffic running to and fro, day and night? If you want peace and quiet, go out into suburbia, into the sticks where public transport does not venture.

Mordd – IndyMedia said :

Speed has not been the issue, ever, except in the minds of car drivers rushing to get their Maccers or to circle to find parking but mostly stuck in traffic. We need a clean quieter and more urban friendly mass transit system, period. That it runs down its own right of way, not down the road in traffic like a “street car” or bus, to a regular schedule is all a bonus.

If you are obsessed about speed, get a bike, they flatly beat all other transport options from Gungahlin to the City. Easily.

Speed certainly is an issue. If the tram is going to take longer to get to your place of employment, or return to your place of residence, many people may not be taking up the option. Has it not already been pointed out that the tram will be slower than the existing bus services? That is not considered an improvement in my book.
A bicycle quicker than a car over a 12 km trip? If you are super fit, sure. Bicycles have to stop at the traffic lights the same as cars do [Though this is commonly not adhered to], so with an average speed of around 20-30km/h, whilst cars do 60km/h, I cannot understand how you come to that conclusion.

Mordd – IndyMedia said :

btw Can you refresh everyone on the costs of your car/s and their details, that you informed us were a basis of your modeling? Some here may not quite understand how you calculate and research the data and facts.

How and why did this have to come to a car cost comparison again? It wouldn’t matter which way I explain it, you wouldn’t change your opinion any more than I will believe in man-made climate change.

rubaiyat 12:13 pm 07 Jun 16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadway_noise

Particularly interesting is that overblown and expensive structure they built over the Melbourne freeway to mitigate the noise. And it doesn’t work.

rubaiyat 11:55 am 07 Jun 16

JC said :

Zed said :

They will do all the same damage buses do to roads, occupying the same roads as cars, make all the same tyre on road noise and offer the same unworkable ride for commuters. I still vainly try to get work done on my laptop on buses but spend almost as much time trying to correct my mistyping as writing it in the first place before giving up.

Oh, please! Tyre noise from electric buses? Surely no more than the metal to metal contact of the tram’s wheels and the contact wire to the pantograph. For someone so interested with data and facts, an American study http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/10.3141/1756-05 found that trams were only marginally quieter than diesel buses whilst electric buses were significantly the quietest. Electric cars are so dangerous already because you cannot hear them coming when you cross the road, meaning you have to be extra vigilant with your eyes. So much worse for vision impaired folks too.

There is also a phrase or sentiment repeating itself throughout web pages on the subject.
“Streetcars that replace bus lines are not a mobility or access improvement. If you replace a bus with a streetcar on the same route, and make no other improvements, nobody will be able to get anywhere any faster than they could before.”
Surely this cannot be true, I mean our government has spent millions convincing us of quite the opposite!
But again, it doesn’t make any difference, the pro-trammers will not see sense, no matter what you tell them. They are in love and love conquers all.

Always good to add to your education: “The tire/ pavement noise accounts for 75 to 90 percent of the overall noise”.

http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/pavement-noise/

I get the car noise incessantly both outside my office and at home. Love to put a db meter on it but it is way above annoying and above conversation level.

That American study on an “abandoned railway” about says it all. Also you do know the difference between street car and light rail?

You can easily test it for yourself to see however they came up with that, no details, they got it badly wrong. Trams generally do not run on abandoned railway tracks, usually tracks embedded in pavement and these days with silicone compound to isolate the rail. The trams running through the Bourke Street Mall don’t disturb the buskers one jot. The loudest thing is the warning bell which is necessary to alert the dozy who otherwise can’t hear the quiet rumble.

There are locations in Melbourne, which does not have particularly quiet trams, that are adjacent to buses which easily drown out the tram and all human conversation. I had the misfortune to stay in a Flinders Street Hotel once and the one thing that you could not hear was the passing trams.

Of course given damaged hearing, your experience (not of any tram apparently) may be different.

One thing is certain, there is an occasional very quiet tram and hundreds of loud non-stop cars, or buses and the easily experienced reality says that you are badly wrong.

Speed has not been the issue, ever, except in the minds of car drivers rushing to get their Maccers or to circle to find parking but mostly stuck in traffic. We need a clean quieter and more urban friendly mass transit system, period. That it runs down its own right of way, not down the road in traffic like a “street car” or bus, to a regular schedule is all a bonus.

If you are obsessed about speed, get a bike, they flatly beat all other transport options from Gungahlin to the City. Easily.

btw Can you refresh everyone on the costs of your car/s and their details, that you informed us were a basis of your modeling? Some here may not quite understand how you calculate and research the data and facts.

wildturkeycanoe 6:42 am 07 Jun 16

Zed said :

They will do all the same damage buses do to roads, occupying the same roads as cars, make all the same tyre on road noise and offer the same unworkable ride for commuters. I still vainly try to get work done on my laptop on buses but spend almost as much time trying to correct my mistyping as writing it in the first place before giving up.

Oh, please! Tyre noise from electric buses? Surely no more than the metal to metal contact of the tram’s wheels and the contact wire to the pantograph. For someone so interested with data and facts, an American study http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/10.3141/1756-05 found that trams were only marginally quieter than diesel buses whilst electric buses were significantly the quietest. Electric cars are so dangerous already because you cannot hear them coming when you cross the road, meaning you have to be extra vigilant with your eyes. So much worse for vision impaired folks too.

There is also a phrase or sentiment repeating itself throughout web pages on the subject.
“Streetcars that replace bus lines are not a mobility or access improvement. If you replace a bus with a streetcar on the same route, and make no other improvements, nobody will be able to get anywhere any faster than they could before.”
Surely this cannot be true, I mean our government has spent millions convincing us of quite the opposite!
But again, it doesn’t make any difference, the pro-trammers will not see sense, no matter what you tell them. They are in love and love conquers all.

rubaiyat 5:45 pm 06 Jun 16

Now that we have a figure on electric buses of $900,000 that clarifies the $3.6 million, plus 4 drivers, plus all the infrastructure they run on, if they were used in a BRT in place of just one tram.

They will do all the same damage buses do to roads, occupying the same roads as cars, make all the same tyre on road noise and offer the same unworkable ride for commuters. I still vainly try to get work done on my laptop on buses but spend almost as much time trying to correct my mistyping as writing it in the first place before giving up.

Maya123 5:41 pm 06 Jun 16

John Hargreaves said :

Mordd – IndyMedia said :

I guess no one in ACT govt considered electric buses?

Yes they have, and when they become practical will be used as feeders to the Light Rail, but they will never be the quiet efficient substitute for the route density of smooth, on time, Light Rail.

And they have been mentioned as a furphy by the opponents of clean safe public transport who want neither.

Yes, I’m guessing that the only reason that many of those against trams mention buses, is they don’t want to admit they NEVER use buses, and really their real wish is to have no public transport.

rubaiyat 5:01 pm 06 Jun 16

Mordd – IndyMedia said :

I guess no one in ACT govt considered electric buses?

http://the-riotact.com/budget-to-fund-electric-bus-trial-20-new-buses-new-city-loop/178331

rubaiyat 4:31 pm 06 Jun 16

Mordd – IndyMedia said :

I guess no one in ACT govt considered electric buses?

Yes they have, and when they become practical will be used as feeders to the Light Rail, but they will never be the quiet efficient substitute for the route density of smooth, on time, Light Rail.

And they have been mentioned as a furphy by the opponents of clean safe public transport who want neither.

steveu 11:29 am 06 Jun 16

I guess no one in ACT govt considered electric buses?

rubaiyat 12:45 am 06 Jun 16

theword said :

The efficiency of trams is very high if they are full with about 2/3 standing. But a lightly loaded tram has a woeful efficiency, worse than a conventional car, let alone an electric car on “green energy”. They will only be loaded up for a short time each day so overall, they are not an energy efficient form of transport. Also note that the ACT govt has advised me that they will be trialling electric buses later this year, if these are on green energy they will overall be more efficient & less polluting than trams.

When autonomous electric cars become available, these will be more efficient than either (except for longer distance commuting where traffic density is relevant).

Note that the trams will only operate during the day, not later in the evening, see Metro’s FAQs. If trams are so good & efficient why are they not operating for very extended hours or 24/7?

Appart from the carbon dioxide emissions, the construction will, according to Metro’s EIS, need about 160,000 tons (the number of zeros is correct) of concrete & steel. This will need a 30T truck every 35 minutes for 2 years. What will this do to other traffic on Northbourne & Flemington? The govt has not been exactly shouting this fact from the rooftops.

The selection process for a transport option was deeply flawed as noted in the article & the process payed no account of the need for Due Diligence principles, surely an essential part of any project. As well as favouring the more costly option over express buses, it did not consider faster, cheaper, more efficient options becoming available in the slightly longer term (which would not need to have all the trees in Northbourne felled).

You really like making things up. Fact a moden day light rail vehicle with AC traction motors, regenerative braking, power recovery systems (aka battery) running on low friction metal wheels on metal rails, empty is going to be more efficient than a diesel powered bus, running on high friction tyres on high friction road surface. Add passengers and it gets better for the tram.

It looks to me like you are using 60 year old data based on driving a camshaft from a DC traction motor with massive resistor banks to expunge excess power. Coupling it with using figures for generating electricity using brown coal power stations. When the reality in 2016 is very very very different. But hey its all 100+ year technology that hasn’t development, ignoring of course the 100 year old petrol/diesel engine…

Well to be fair the 100 year old petrol/diesel engines have seen recent remarkable improvements and we have all seen a huge number of links to prove it! Check the Volkswagen/Mitsubishi websites for proof! 😀

dungfungus 12:10 pm 05 Jun 16

Mysteryman said :

brw The Tram stops with one exception, Dickson I think, are at traffic lights where there are already crossings.

But I agree, pedestrians, which includes anyone who has actually got out of a car, should be eliminated at all costs.

We seem to be approaching an hysterical peak as the trams loomed closer and ever more frighteningly real. At the opening of the line it will be necessary to vacate Canberra as the last vestiges of that immense horde, CanTheTram, launches a last desperate attack on the this devil’s work with their zimmer frames and colouring in science books.

“pedestrians, which includes anyone who has actually got out of a car, should be eliminated at all costs.”
Are you advocating “pedestrian cleansing”?
I know you hate cars but why now pick on pedestrians?

JC 5:39 pm 04 Jun 16

The efficiency of trams is very high if they are full with about 2/3 standing. But a lightly loaded tram has a woeful efficiency, worse than a conventional car, let alone an electric car on “green energy”. They will only be loaded up for a short time each day so overall, they are not an energy efficient form of transport. Also note that the ACT govt has advised me that they will be trialling electric buses later this year, if these are on green energy they will overall be more efficient & less polluting than trams.

When autonomous electric cars become available, these will be more efficient than either (except for longer distance commuting where traffic density is relevant).

Note that the trams will only operate during the day, not later in the evening, see Metro’s FAQs. If trams are so good & efficient why are they not operating for very extended hours or 24/7?

Appart from the carbon dioxide emissions, the construction will, according to Metro’s EIS, need about 160,000 tons (the number of zeros is correct) of concrete & steel. This will need a 30T truck every 35 minutes for 2 years. What will this do to other traffic on Northbourne & Flemington? The govt has not been exactly shouting this fact from the rooftops.

The selection process for a transport option was deeply flawed as noted in the article & the process payed no account of the need for Due Diligence principles, surely an essential part of any project. As well as favouring the more costly option over express buses, it did not consider faster, cheaper, more efficient options becoming available in the slightly longer term (which would not need to have all the trees in Northbourne felled).

You really like making things up. Fact a moden day light rail vehicle with AC traction motors, regenerative braking, power recovery systems (aka battery) running on low friction metal wheels on metal rails, empty is going to be more efficient than a diesel powered bus, running on high friction tyres on high friction road surface. Add passengers and it gets better for the tram.

It looks to me like you are using 60 year old data based on driving a camshaft from a DC traction motor with massive resistor banks to expunge excess power. Coupling it with using figures for generating electricity using brown coal power stations. When the reality in 2016 is very very very different. But hey its all 100+ year technology that hasn’t development, ignoring of course the 100 year old petrol/diesel engine…

rubaiyat 3:04 pm 04 Jun 16

Kim Huynh said :

How will all these people get into the tram in the first place?
Won’t they have to install more crossings along the route so people can ‘safely’ get onto the tram.
These extra stops are going to cause lots of inefficient cars.

Currently the bus pull off to the side of the road, however not many people catch buses.
Estimate for tram is thousands per day.

I’ve already been on several buses that have hit passengers who tried to run for the bus and have been a bit too slow. I can’t imagine a tram hit would be any better.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-man-killed-after-being-hit-by-car-while-changing-tyre-20160603-gpaux6.html

rubaiyat 11:50 am 04 Jun 16

I propose a new rational prioritisation of transport based on efficiency and cleanliness. The things a city NEEDS.

This will unfortunately relegate polluting noisy single occupant cars which eat up a lot of land with widely separated heavy vehicles requiring too much roadway and ugly parking, to the bottom of the list. Where they belong.

dungfungus 11:18 am 04 Jun 16

nealg said :

Let’s face it, a tram is just a large electric bus that is stuck driving on the same set of tracks, given priority over all other traffic. Buses are more flexible, can go around breakdowns or accidents.

From the Capital Metro home page;
– 7am-6pm weekdays the services will run every at least every 15 minutes most of the day and every 6 minutes during peak.
– Weekends and weekday evenings at least every 15 minutes.
– The journey time between the City and Gungahlin is anticipated to be 25 minutes or less.

Then in another spot on their web page;
– It is expected light rail vehicles will be capable of carrying a minimum of 200 people at a time, running at 10 minute intervals along the route with 5 minute intervals in the peak.

So which schedule is it going to be, 10 or 15 minute intervals, 5 or 6 minutes in peak?
Using the 15 minute model, there will be 4 trams going to Civic every hour, trams capable of carrying 200 people. So if the 7500 individual one way trips expected to use this timetable eventuate, 800 people per hour would take over 9 hours to transport into Civic, then another 9 hours to return them all. That is not going to work. If they go to 6 minute peak intervals, you move 2000 people in an hour and get them all to Civic in a little under 4 hours. That works, but then you have to assume that peak hour is from 7AM to 10:45AM. Doesn’t everybody have to get to work by 9:30 or 10:00 in the morning? That means the last tram to take in order to arrive on time would be 9:00, assuming you still need to walk at least 5 minutes to get to your office from the tram stop.
If you go to a 5 minute interval, you move 2400 an hour, meaning 10:00 AM is the last peak hour tram departure, still too late for a work schedule.
I think with the patronage they are aiming for they will require more frequent services than they have proposed.

From the ACT Light Rail web page – “20 000+The number of passengers light rail can carry on just one corridor during peak hour”. Bollocks. If each tram only carries 200 people, that is 100 tram trips in the hour meaning a tram departs every 36 seconds. Logistically you cannot even load the tram in less than a few minutes, because people have to step on board, swipe on, allow others to get off at that stop etc. They quote figures that have no scientific basis. Even at their quoted 5 minute peak period intervals, you would be moving over 1600 people in each tram to reach 20,000 in the hour. Ludicrous and just a blatant lie in order to make the tram figures look better.
I wonder if any of these imaginary numbers were used to create the reports that convinced the Labor Party of the project’s viability.

Another consideration is the number of stops on the route affecting travel time. There are thirteen stops planned on the route. If passengers board at every stop along the way it could take approximately a minute to board or exit the tram, as one tries to navigate their way through the people standing in the aisles as only seventy seats are available. That 25 minute journey then only leaves 13 minutes of actual travel time so to make it the one kilometer per minute, it must travel at 60 kilometers per hour, not counting acceleration and deceleration speeds. It is going to have to take off pretty quick or go pretty fast to keep up with its timetable.

Honestly, all of these practicalities and the unknowns of passenger embarkations are going to make synchronizing the lights a nightmare for whoever has the unenviable job of programming it. Just one slow passenger, possibly an elderly person for example, holding up the tram for a minute or so because of mobility issues, will throw the whole system into chaos as the next tram pulls up behind it. With no way of overtaking to maintain its timetable, the traffic synchronization will be thrown out of kilter and dominoes will fall. Just one broken down car, one electronic malfunction, any number of reasons could cause transit chaos. This is not an inherent problem with buses which can maintain schedules by simply using alternative routes.

Great analysis of the wild assumptions the tram promoters have made for the transport system we don’t need.
The guff that our government put out about why we need this tram and how good it will be are mostly highly paid public officials or tram industry associates and unions who have a vested interest in this project.
Guess how they get around now? That’s right, employer supplied cars with employer provided private parking.
Will they all start swapping this perk for travelling in the trams with 100s of other standing strap-hanging commuters?
No.
I wouldn’t really care if I lived in Queanbeyan but alas, I am still in the “fast becoming unaffordable” ACT.

rubaiyat 10:25 am 04 Jun 16

brw The Tram stops with one exception, Dickson I think, are at traffic lights where there are already crossings.

But I agree, pedestrians, which includes anyone who has actually got out of a car, should be eliminated at all costs.

We seem to be approaching an hysterical peak as the trams loomed closer and ever more frighteningly real. At the opening of the line it will be necessary to vacate Canberra as the last vestiges of that immense horde, CanTheTram, launches a last desperate attack on the this devil’s work with their zimmer frames and colouring in science books.

rubaiyat 10:17 am 04 Jun 16

Kim Huynh said :

How will all these people get into the tram in the first place?
Won’t they have to install more crossings along the route so people can ‘safely’ get onto the tram.
These extra stops are going to cause lots of inefficient cars.

Currently the bus pull off to the side of the road, however not many people catch buses.
Estimate for tram is thousands per day.

I’ve already been on several buses that have hit passengers who tried to run for the bus and have been a bit too slow. I can’t imagine a tram hit would be any better.

I witnessed a child hit by a car in front of his mother and thrown a house length.

You are so right, with about one death per year per the entire Melbourne tram system and about the same for the entire NSW rail system, neither can compare to the efficient carnage of cars and therefore should be stopped by any reasonable rational person.

Know any?

wildturkeycanoe 7:59 am 04 Jun 16

Let’s face it, a tram is just a large electric bus that is stuck driving on the same set of tracks, given priority over all other traffic. Buses are more flexible, can go around breakdowns or accidents.

From the Capital Metro home page;
– 7am-6pm weekdays the services will run every at least every 15 minutes most of the day and every 6 minutes during peak.
– Weekends and weekday evenings at least every 15 minutes.
– The journey time between the City and Gungahlin is anticipated to be 25 minutes or less.

Then in another spot on their web page;
– It is expected light rail vehicles will be capable of carrying a minimum of 200 people at a time, running at 10 minute intervals along the route with 5 minute intervals in the peak.

So which schedule is it going to be, 10 or 15 minute intervals, 5 or 6 minutes in peak?
Using the 15 minute model, there will be 4 trams going to Civic every hour, trams capable of carrying 200 people. So if the 7500 individual one way trips expected to use this timetable eventuate, 800 people per hour would take over 9 hours to transport into Civic, then another 9 hours to return them all. That is not going to work. If they go to 6 minute peak intervals, you move 2000 people in an hour and get them all to Civic in a little under 4 hours. That works, but then you have to assume that peak hour is from 7AM to 10:45AM. Doesn’t everybody have to get to work by 9:30 or 10:00 in the morning? That means the last tram to take in order to arrive on time would be 9:00, assuming you still need to walk at least 5 minutes to get to your office from the tram stop.
If you go to a 5 minute interval, you move 2400 an hour, meaning 10:00 AM is the last peak hour tram departure, still too late for a work schedule.
I think with the patronage they are aiming for they will require more frequent services than they have proposed.

From the ACT Light Rail web page – “20 000+The number of passengers light rail can carry on just one corridor during peak hour”. Bollocks. If each tram only carries 200 people, that is 100 tram trips in the hour meaning a tram departs every 36 seconds. Logistically you cannot even load the tram in less than a few minutes, because people have to step on board, swipe on, allow others to get off at that stop etc. They quote figures that have no scientific basis. Even at their quoted 5 minute peak period intervals, you would be moving over 1600 people in each tram to reach 20,000 in the hour. Ludicrous and just a blatant lie in order to make the tram figures look better.
I wonder if any of these imaginary numbers were used to create the reports that convinced the Labor Party of the project’s viability.

Another consideration is the number of stops on the route affecting travel time. There are thirteen stops planned on the route. If passengers board at every stop along the way it could take approximately a minute to board or exit the tram, as one tries to navigate their way through the people standing in the aisles as only seventy seats are available. That 25 minute journey then only leaves 13 minutes of actual travel time so to make it the one kilometer per minute, it must travel at 60 kilometers per hour, not counting acceleration and deceleration speeds. It is going to have to take off pretty quick or go pretty fast to keep up with its timetable.

Honestly, all of these practicalities and the unknowns of passenger embarkations are going to make synchronizing the lights a nightmare for whoever has the unenviable job of programming it. Just one slow passenger, possibly an elderly person for example, holding up the tram for a minute or so because of mobility issues, will throw the whole system into chaos as the next tram pulls up behind it. With no way of overtaking to maintain its timetable, the traffic synchronization will be thrown out of kilter and dominoes will fall. Just one broken down car, one electronic malfunction, any number of reasons could cause transit chaos. This is not an inherent problem with buses which can maintain schedules by simply using alternative routes.

Nilrem 5:25 am 04 Jun 16

Kim Huynh said :

How will all these people get into the tram in the first place?
Won’t they have to install more crossings along the route so people can ‘safely’ get onto the tram.
These extra stops are going to cause lots of inefficient cars.

Currently the bus pull off to the side of the road, however not many people catch buses.
Estimate for tram is thousands per day.

I’ve already been on several buses that have hit passengers who tried to run for the bus and have been a bit too slow. I can’t imagine a tram hit would be any better.

Yeah, and people suicide on front of trains. Better not have them. No one ever dies or is injured in car accidents.

gooterz 12:04 am 04 Jun 16

How will all these people get into the tram in the first place?
Won’t they have to install more crossings along the route so people can ‘safely’ get onto the tram.
These extra stops are going to cause lots of inefficient cars.

Currently the bus pull off to the side of the road, however not many people catch buses.
Estimate for tram is thousands per day.

I’ve already been on several buses that have hit passengers who tried to run for the bus and have been a bit too slow. I can’t imagine a tram hit would be any better.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site